Ieithas recognitionn cyfleidio du. Oedd o'n gweld ei fod wedi gweld, maen nhw'n gweld yn gwybod y bwysig. Mae beth o unrhyw meddwl ar yr enw, Llywodraeth Yng Nghyrgrifennig yw yn gyngweld i Gwenni Gwanaeth i gyffredinol, 10 rhan o'r 170 o bwysig, barat a'r gwnaeth, Ieithi Gwanaeth i Brannu iddo, i'r gwybod a'n gallu chweithio i barat yn yn oed wedi gweld i marquod, i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod i gwybod. crunchy wax if there could be much... When we debate education in general, and schools in particular, the truth is that this Parliament and this Government's responsibility for the education of our children and grandchildren sits at the front of a long and broad historical sweep. It has been five hundred years since the reformation, which in Scotland especially had the revolutionary idea of universal schooling running through it. It is 145 years since attendance at school became compulsory, 50 years since circular 600 comprehensivised our schools and ended the 11 plus, 35 years since standard grades heralded assessment for all, and 15 years since the launch of the national debate on education, which led to curriculum for excellence, and it is 10 years since the SNP Government assumed responsibility for our schools. That responsibility did not begin when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister nor when John Swinney became education secretary. It spans all of the introduction of curriculum for excellence in schools. It covers a fifth of the history of comprehensive schools in this country. A whole cohort of pupils has almost completed their whole schooling under the SNP, so it is right and reasonable then to take this moment to judge the Government's record on education, as they have invited us to do, but to judge that record of the past decade. I suppose, in a way, the Government motion or amendment this evening tries to do that too, and there's not much to actually disagree with in it. The trouble is that it is ridiculously partial. Above all, it fails to mention the repeated evidence of slipping standards in literacy, numeracy and science, from the Government's own literacy and numeracy surveys, their own improvement framework data, and most dramatically, of course, the OECD PISA results. It acknowledges challenges but ignores failures. Take the positive destination figures of this week that the motion references. Yes, it is welcome that more young people leave school for a positive destination, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that children from poorer families are still three times more likely not to be in education training or work than their richer counterparts. The SNP put a press release this week on those figures, somewhat inappropriately featuring the convener of the education committee—I have it here. He welcomes the figures briefly, as you would expect. He then spends two thirds of his, quote, denouncing schools in England. The release is completed with a link to the Scottish figures and six links to information on English schools. For that whole sweep of the history of our schools, we have aspired not even just to have the best schools in the world— We have aspired not even just to have the best schools in the world but the best we can imagine. Now it seems that the Government's benchmark is less bad than England. Is that really the level of aspiration that the party of Government sets for what the First Minister called her sacred responsibility? I wonder if you are aware that Western Bartonshire Council cut the school week by half a day. It had to be reversed by the Opposition calling a special meeting. What does that do for the poorest people? Every school in Western Bartonshire qualifies for additional funds. What do you say about Scotland in the way that your party treats education? To tell you the truth, when it comes to cutting the school day, what I remember best is the massive public meeting in Renfrew council when it was run by the SNP, which I attended, to support the parents who were fighting exactly that. Listen, curriculum for excellence is exactly about setting our sites higher, freeing our teachers to teach, inspire and innovate to the maximum. The education secretary occasionally asks me if we in those benches still support curriculum for excellence and we do. It is exactly because we support it that it pains us to see the mess that this Government has made of its implementation. The decade of CFE implementation has been a decade of cuts to school budgets, over 4,000 fewer teachers, over 1,000 fewer support staff and class sizes steadily increasing. I heard the education secretary yesterday say that last year's spending on schools increased, and it did. However, the same figures show that school budgets are still hundreds of millions of pounds lower in real terms than they were in 2007 when the SNP came to power. One swallow does not a summer make nor one year undo a decade of cuts. In any case, the Government has achieved the remarkable feat of losing thousands of teachers jobs and creating a teacher shortage at the same time. The education secretary heard him say a few minutes ago as increased teacher training places, but universities struggle to fill them. Mark McDonald. To Ian Gray for giving way, he cites teacher shortages. I wonder whether he feels sensible, therefore, for Labour-led Aberdeen City Council to have written out to teachers, offering them voluntary severance or early retirement when, at the same time, complaining of a teacher shortage. Iain Gray. Listen, every council in the country is labouring under the strain of £1.5 billion pounds of cuts that they have suffered in the past few years. However, Mr Swinney likes sometimes to accuse us of being to blame for all this shortage that we talk teachers down. Well, I tell you what, I am a teacher to tread and you won't catch me talking teachers down. I know that a fully trained professional teaching force has always been the greatest strength in our schools. I know that, in spite of those cuts, they deliver remarkable success and inspire our children every day of the week, we should thank them. However, if we keep cutting them, those thanks are worthless. The fact is that we pay teachers less than similar countries do. We provide them with less preparation time than other countries do. We provide them with less support staff and resources than other countries do, and we put them in front of bigger classes than pretty well every other country in the developed world. Then we wonder why we cannot recruit enough of them. Thanking teachers means nothing unless we listen to their concerns. The Education and Skills Committee of this Parliament did just that—they listened to teachers. Teachers told them that they had lost confidence in the SQA in Education Scotland at reductions in additional support staff for making life difficult, and the Education Secretary rubbished the work of the committee. It wasn't a proper sample, he said. Then he told the committee the valid view is what teachers told him when he visited schools. I'm reminded of the old chestnut that the Queen thinks the world smells permanently of fresh paint. Now we hear that the Cabinet Secretary has delayed his governance reforms, but he's not listening again. The responses to that review tell him that the reforms that he proposes missed the point. Here's the EIS, here's teachers. The greatest barrier is and has been the imposition of austerity-driven budgets and the underfunding of the Scottish education system over the past period. But it's not just teachers, here's a group of parents from Aberdeen. Local council budgets have been reduced year on year for a considerable number of years. Teacher shortages impact the ability to deliver excellence and equity for all. Or here's Dundee council, run by the SNP. They say that the real barriers have been imposed on councils over recent years following a series of past and present reductions to the budget. The Royal Society for Edinburgh sums it up neatly. It is not clear how the proposed governance changes will lead to improved educational experiences and outcomes. Isn't the real reason that the Government has delayed their great reforms is that the responses that are telling them are the wrong reforms and what is needed in our schools is more resource, more teachers and more time? There's little or no support either for plans to centralise school budgets. Mr Swinney sometimes asks me if we support anything that he does. Well, we do. We support the equity fund to close the attainment gap. Why wouldn't we? From the moment the attainment fund was introduced, we said that it should be more, that it should follow pupils to whichever school they attend. We even argued that free school meal entitlement was the best proxy for poverty and that funds should go direct to head teachers. The Government clearly agreed because that's what they've done. However, we can't ignore the fact that this is £120 million set against cuts of £170 million to councils' core budgets. We can't ignore the fact that this is £120 million of funding devolved to schools set against the core school budgets being removed from local control and set centrally by formula. That's £120 million devolved and £4 billion centralised to paraphrase the First Minister. Only in the world of the SMP could that be called decentralisation, not centralisation. In my constituency, there's a primary school with over 1,000 pupils—one of the biggest in the country—and there's others just down the road with less than 20. The idea that some algorithm in Victoria Key will know enough about those schools and the communities that they serve to make a rational decision on their budget is ridiculous. It is not serving the interests of parents, schools and teachers to remove local control of their budgets. Any more than it serves their interests to cut teacher numbers, reduce support staff and increase class sizes. Yes, our schools need reform, but we need reforms that take teachers and parents with us. Even the Education Secretary's core reform of national standardised assessment, we tried to maintain an open mind on that, but he's failed to take teachers with him. That's why we see the vast majority of councils saying that they're going to use those assessments on top of what they did before, increasing work load, increasing testing. That's why we've seen those league tables that we were promised we wouldn't see. The defence that the Scottish Government doesn't publish the league tables, but they just publish the numbers that somebody can put them in order, is just ridiculous. Yes, our schools need reform. The new exams need reform because they're narrowing the curriculum and reducing attainment. Local charging for exam remarks needs reform that should end. The senior phase needs reform backed by a comprehensive career guidance system, and achievement could be universal like knowledge, maybe through a Scottish graduation certificate. Every school should have a counselling service available and a breakfast club. There should be more collaboration between schools and across education authorities. The SQA certainly needs reform, refocused and resourced. The inspectorate should be independent again. Education Scotland should be serving teachers, non-ministers, and it could perhaps provide that strengthened middle, the OECD suggests that we need if it was regionalised. But above all, our schools need more teachers with more support, more time and more resources to do the job that they do so well. That's the core reform. Failure to deliver it is the defining characteristic of the SNP decade in charge of education. Don't delay your reform programme, Education Secretary. Ditch it now and start investing properly in schools. That's what parents and teachers and SNP counsellors are telling you, too. Thank you. I don't think you moved your motion, Mr Gray. I may have missed it. Did you move it? Sorry. Thank you very much. Firmly moved. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, I move the amendment that stands in my name. Ian Gray said that it was right and reasonable to hold the Government to account. Of course that is correct—the Government is here to be held to account and I accept that accountability. But there is also a need for all parties to be consistent. Ian Gray's criticism of my amendment was that it was ridiculously partial. My amendment acknowledges that, despite the progress that has been made—I will come back to the progress—there remain significant challenges in closing the attainment gap and raising standards for all. It further acknowledges the wider challenges that exist within Scottish education, including budget pressures, the wider impacts on poverty, on educational opportunities, teacher recruitment, teacher workload and the role of agencies such as the SQA and Education Scotland. That, to me, is a fair assessment of Scottish education. When I look at what Ian Gray has put down, what I see Ian Gray putting down on the order paper today is a motion that says absolutely nothing good about Scottish education, nothing whatsoever. It is a disgraceful motion for Mr Gray to have put down in Parliament today. I utterly refute to the characterisation of Scottish education. If Mr Gray made reference to schools in his constituency, I refused to believe that, if he went into Knox academy, or Dunbar grammar school, or North Berwick high school, or Ross high school, or Preston high school, he would find a characterisation as pathetically miserable, as in his motion that he has got before Parliament today. If he wants to get away. Ian Gray? I go into all those high schools on a regular basis. Do you know what they tell me, Mr Swinney? They tell me that they do not have enough teachers and that they cannot recruit to teachers for the vacancies that they have. That is what they tell me. What those schools will also tell Mr Gray? I have answered in their amendment the points of issue about teacher recruitment, workload and other issues, but what Mr Gray's miserable motion fails to do is to take account of the fact that we have a record number of advanced higher passes in this country. We have a record of the second highest level of achievement in the higher qualification. We have a rising number of positive destinations achieved by young people in Scotland as a product of the education system. What is stopping Mr Gray putting some of that on the record to complement what our teachers and pupils are able to achieve in Scottish education? What is wrong with celebrating what is actually achieved in the schools of Scotland? I am grateful to Mr Swinney for taking the intervention. He mentioned teacher training and teacher recruitment. That is precisely the crisis that is facing local authorities across the north of Scotland. He referred to that in answer to Richard Lochhead earlier. All that he has done in the past six years has failed to address that teacher recruitment crisis. Cabinet secretary, we have brought forward 11 new mechanisms to encourage teachers to join the teaching profession. We increased the postgraduate diploma and education intake by 19 per cent last year. I have increased the intake by 370 teachers this year. For my efforts, Aberdeen City Council wants to offer teachers voluntary redundancy. How in any way is that a sensible step for Aberdeen City Council to be taken? The Government is set out in the national improvement framework, an agenda for strengthening Scottish education from the foundations that we have. I am first to accept, as I have accepted in the Government's amendment, that there are challenges that exist within Scottish education. There is an opportunity for political parties in this Parliament to have an opportunity to work with the Government in taking forward the agenda and contributing positively to that agenda. However, what concerns me about the characterisation of Scottish education that we have heard from Mr Gray today is the unwillingness to acknowledge the strength of performance that has been achieved, whether that is the 30 per cent increase in higher passes since 2007, or the increase to 93.3 per cent of positive destinations of young people leaving education, or the fact that 9 out of 10 young people from deprived communities are now continuing in education, and the gap between those young people from deprived backgrounds able to achieve qualifications at SCQF level 5 has closed from 36.8 per cent to 20.9 per cent. That is the achievement that has been made in Scottish education. I do not understand why Mr Gray will not celebrate it. I think that Mr Swinney would have to acknowledge that that was something that I did celebrate successes within Scottish education in my speech. The point that he misses, of course, is that the motion is about his and his Government's stewardship of Scottish education. Scottish education is succeeding in spite of his failures and not because of his successes. He is yet to tell us one of his successes. I will go through it again in case Mr Gray did not hear it. Since 2007, this Government came to office in 2007, and we have got a 30 per cent increase in the higher pass rate. This Government has seen an increasing year-on-year delivery of 93.3 per cent in positive destinations. I will list a wee minute. I would like to hear all speeches, please. Thank you. Those achievements have been made by the young people of Scotland in an education system over which this Government has been presiding. That is what Mr Gray has got to accept as part of this process. On his point about his speech recognises all of these things, has Mr Gray to go and look at the miserable motion that he has put forward that characterises Scottish education in an unrepresentative fashion that does not account for the progress that has been made in Scottish education? That is what Mr Gray has got to take account of. The member is in his last minute. I am sorry, Cabinet Secretary, in your last minute. Let me conclude on some of the measures that the Government has taken to address those issues. The Government has put forward £120 million of the pupil equity funding, directive schools in Scotland, to ensure that schools have the ability to take into account the circumstances of young people to boost their educational attainment and their education possibilities. The Scottish attainment fund puts £50 million directly into nine local authorities with high levels of deprivation, and the Government's support is in place to maintain the number of teachers at 51,000 in the schools of Scotland able to contribute to the quality education of young people in Scotland. That is what the Government is doing. I am interested in having a debate about how we strengthen Scottish education, but we have to have that debate from the standpoint of what is being achieved already in Scottish education. After a process of reform Scottish education is performing at a higher level in those achievements of positive destinations, of higher passes, of advanced higher passes, that is what has been delivered as a consequence of our efforts in Scottish education. What we are determined to do is to ensure that we improve that performance consistent with the national improvement framework to work with schools and local authorities to achieve that. What would help us is if the Opposition in Parliament would engage in a constructive debate rather than carping from the sidelines, which is exactly what Mr Gray has done today? Cabinet Secretary, I will get you to move your amendment, please. I now call Liz Smith—Miss Smith, seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I hope that I will start on a constructive note. I think that Mr Gray is correct in some of his analysis. I also think that the Cabinet Secretary is correct in some of his analysis. That exchange just now flags up what I think is a deeper problem, and it is not to do with who is right and who is wrong, but it is about the nature of the evidence by which we make our judgments. That was something that came through very strongly at the education committee this morning, but it is something that has been coming through a lot of the studies that have been done on Scottish education. One of the base problems that we face—this was picked up by the OECD and it has been picked up by some of our education experts—is that, in order to get a value judgment, because that is what we are all looking for—I do not doubt the integrity of every single member in this chamber to do what is best for Scottish education—we need to be absolutely clear that the base evidence that we have is relevant and that it is accurate. One of the great sadness about the curriculum for excellence is that that evidence was not taken at the appropriate time. It is very difficult for us to measure the progress that is being made or, in some cases, the lack of progress that is being made. That judgment is crucial, because if we are going to do what is right for Scottish education, which will bind together some of the points that Mr Gray has made and, obviously, that the cabinet secretary has made, that evidence is absolutely crucial. I bring it back to the committee evidence, because we have been criticised as a committee that some of the judgments that we have made have not been formulated around a wide enough base of evidence and that it has been unbalanced. In some cases, perhaps it has not given due credibility to some of the other people who have been involved in that debate. I worry about that, because I think that one of the most important things in this Parliament is the committee system and the way that we scrutinise what is going on. I give credit to our current chairman, who I think has had a very difficult job in trying to marshal the evidence, because the reason that we have had to put a lot of our value judgments on what teachers are saying to us, both through the very formal evidence that we have taken as a committee, but also the evidence that we have had in very private focus groups and all the evidence that we collect as MSPs when we go round the schools. We have had to listen to those teachers in great number and to all the associations that represent them—whether that is the geography teachers, the modern studies association, the computing experts, people in the unions—it does not matter. We have had to listen to them, because a lot of the other part of the research base has not been there. That makes a lot of the judgment quite difficult. When it comes to making our assessment of where we stand on the curriculum for excellence just now, there are of course very good things going on in Scottish education. Of course there are, and that is something that we need to recognise. Just before I came into the chamber just now, I heard about the Royal Conservatoire becoming third in the world for the best performing arts. That is a tremendous accolade for Scottish education, and we should all recognise that. Let us not detract from the main motion. I think that Mr Gray is absolutely right to flag up a lot of the great difficulties in Scottish education just now. The cabinet secretary, particularly when the PISA results came out, had good grace to acknowledge the extent of the challenge that we face. However, let us just deal with the extent of that challenge, because my goodness, it is extensive, because the PISA scores show us exactly where we have to go to ensure that we are bringing up Scottish education, not just for those in the lower attainment group, but for those in the higher attainment group as well. It is not just about closing the attainment gap, it is about raising the whole level of Scottish education. We know from the PISA scores exactly how much we have to do. We also know that we have problems in teacher recruitment, which is well spelt out by the Labour Party this afternoon. Last week, we learned that we have serious shortages in key subjects such as English and maths. That is a serious worry for Scottish education. Of course. The closure of the undergraduate primary teaching degree course at Engraves University will be a further hindrance to recruiting teachers into Scottish education. Yes, I do. I think that there are serious concerns around that. I think that that is an area that has to be looked at. I know that the cabinet secretary has initiated new discussion about routes into teaching and the way in which we undertake the professional training of those new recruits. However, there are serious questions around that. Let us be honest that the teacher shortages are very serious. I think that our colleague Richard Lochhead referred to that in committee this morning. Those are serious concerns for Scottish education just now. We must not shy away from them. If we do shy away from them, we pretend that the evidence is not accurate or that we are aware that we can get around that. We are not going to deal head-on with what the curriculum for excellence is supposed to be doing. We all agree, and I will put on record the Conservatives' support for the principles of the curriculum for excellence, but at present I do not believe that it is being delivered particularly well. I come back to the point—I will finish on that point—that we had throughout our committee sessions in November and December, where the education agencies found it very difficult to cast iron reasons as to why certain decisions had been taken. For me, that is a worry. Even if I disagree with them, I want to know why they have taken those decisions. If we do not know why they have taken the decisions, we are never going to be able to make progress on the way forward. That is one of the most important challenges that we face just now is dealing with education agencies and ensuring that they are taking not only the right decisions, but they are basing it on the accurate evidence that we all know that we are trying to collect. For that reason alone, we have to do something positive about ensuring that the delivery of the curriculum for excellence meets the aspirations of all those teachers who are doing a fantastic job against very difficult circumstances, and of parents, and of pupils. I think that I am about to finish on that point. I move to the open debate. I ask all members who want to take part in the debate to make sure that they press the request-to-speak buttons. First, Monica Lennon, followed by Jenny Gilruth, is a tight six minutes to everyone. I want to take the opportunity to raise an issue that I have raised several times before with the Scottish Government. That is a situation that is faced by our pupils with additional support needs and our vital support staff in schools. We know, because parents tell us, that we face a situation where a number of pupils require additional support needs more than doubles in 2010, and at the same time, the number of support staff has gone down. The Scottish Children's Services Coalition has warned that we face a lost generation of children with additional support needs. Just last week, the Association of Headteachers and Deputies made a submission to the Education and Skills Committee warning that teachers do not have sufficient resources to deal with the increasing demand. I know that ministers are always quick to tell myself and others in the chamber when we raise such issues that the reason for the large increase in numbers is down to changes in the way that additional support needs are calculated. That is something that I do acknowledge and understand. However, since we now have better data and a better understanding of the additional support needs that our pupils have, surely that would mean that we would be seeing an increase in the number of additional support needs staff and not a decline. The argument that I have heard time and time again in the chamber from ministers that the large increase in additional support needs numbers is down to sometimes temporary support needs does not mean that that is a justification for the fact that support staff in our schools has been falling year on year. Not only do we have a reduction in the number of support for learning teachers in 2010, we also have 4,000 fewer teachers overall, as Ingrid has set out, and 1,000 fewer support staff since the Scottish National Party Government came to power. That is the record that we are looking at today. That means that the overall team that it takes to keep the school running on a day-to-day basis from librarians to cleaning staff to teaching assistants has been much reduced over the past few years, piling more and more pressure on teachers and making any other subsequent misguided plans about school governance reform all the more difficult to implement when the basic resources for pupils and their needs are being consistently cut back. The Unison report, Hard Lessons, which was published a month or so ago, sets us out very clearly. It surveyed 900 support staff in our schools. If our teachers are telling us that they do not have the resources that they need to cope with additional learning needs, then this Government needs to listen to them and those concerns and use the powers of this Parliament to reverse some of the cuts to local authorities, which I know that people want to deny. I will put on record my interests as an elected member in South Lancer Council, but also as a parent and an elected person who listens to people. In fact, I have just written down a Twitter DM that came through from a parent. I do not know where he lives, but he says that my son has an autism diagnosis and arranging necessary support in education and health is a constant battle for us. I know that it is the same for parents across the country, so he does not care the political colours in the local authority. The point is that the resources are missing. She raises the issue, as she has done before, about resources to local authorities. For 10 years, we were told by Labour politicians in this chamber and local authorities that what we needed to do was to unfreeze the council tax and free local authorities up to raise revenue at local level. We have done that. Come on a call in and tell me what her local authority in South Lancer did and what other Labour-led councils did in relation to the council tax. I am not going to waste time talking about things that are on the public record. I would hope that Mark McDonald has said something about the parent who texted in to tell us about their experience. The council tax has not been frozen anywhere because council bills will be rising. However, the point is that we are here to discuss—point your finger on your life, minister—but let's talk about how we— Excuse me—sit down a minute. That's not suitable. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let's talk about the attainment gap. Attempting to close the attainment gap, this Government's attainment gap will only continue to be made more difficult if the focus and attention of our classroom teachers is being constantly divided and stretched because of pressure to meet additional support needs without the help to do so. More resources in our schools support children's mental health and wellbeing is part of the broader picture around resources. I have been asking the mental health minister who will be welcome to recognise that post as an important one. However, we have a delayed mental health strategy. I have been asking whether the mental health minister is working with the Cabinet Secretary and the education team, not to point fingers, but to find solutions. In a way, I reply from the First Minister from a few weeks ago. Every young person with additional support needs the help that they need to allow them to succeed and receive the education to which they are entitled. Behind all the statistics that we can all mention are young people struggling to receive the education that they deserve because of a lack of resources and teachers struggling to keep up with demand. Recently, I heard from a young carer who is a younger brother with significant additional support needs who attends a special school. That young woman told me that because of staffing cuts at the school and an escalation of her brother's needs, he is now sent home from school after lunchtime every day, meaning not only is he missing out on his full educational entitlement, but there is increased pressure on the family in terms of caring responsibilities and arrangements that they have to make. We must be doing more to ensure that cases like that cannot continue to be the norm. We cannot shrug our shoulders. Every child in Scotland deserves a chance to fulfil their potential. It is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that our schools and teachers have the resources that they need to be able to do that. The Government has been in power for 10 years. That is a decade of stewardship over Scotland's education sector, which has saw staff numbers fall and pupil outcomes decline. It is not good enough. All those in Scotland's education sector, Presiding Officer, deserve much better than the failing efforts of this SNP Government. I heard someone's voice when I read the Labour Party's motion today. It wasn't the voices of my registration class chattering away as it began their school day. It wasn't the voice of my primary teacher, Mrs Wood, the sound of which could stop you dead in your tracks. It wasn't the voices of the young apprentices that I had the fortune to meet at the Azure and leave in on Monday. No, Presiding Officer, it was the ominous voice of that character that you might associate with Hogmanay. Mr Happy himself—and no, I am not talking about Ian Gray—was, of course, the Reverend I.M. Jolly. Hello. What sort of year have you had? Has it been happy for you? Did something wonderful happen to you? Well, we have had a record number of advanced higher passes. Four out of 10 students from Scotland's most deprived areas left school with at least one higher or equivalent, and more than 90 per cent of school leavers, are now going on to a positive destination. I would say that it wasn't too bad. Presiding Officer, far from it be it for me to be accused of blind party loyalty when it comes to the challenges that we undoubtedly face in education. So, as any good teacher would do, I would try to find an area—any area—of today's depressingly predictable Labour motion, which I could agree on, or at least, given out of cognisance to. Labour states that the Parliament notes the evidence that was submitted to the education and skills committee that many teachers have lost confidence in education Scotland and the SQA. In that part of today's motion, I find it hard to disagree with. Some teachers have lost faith in those organisations. We know that through the work of the education committee. I know that from working in our schools, but it should therefore be incumbent upon every party and every MSP in this place to ensure that trust is restored. In terms of the OECD results, yes, we know that we are not good enough at the moment, not that no-one on those benches has denied that, but the data that is provided by the OECD has provided us with a catalyst in terms of the Government's education reforms, yes, I could wait to know. I agree. Ms Gouris makes a personal fair point that we need to regain trust in the SQA in Education Scotland. I made at least two suggestions how Education Scotland could be reorganised in order to try and do that. Could she tell me what she thinks the Scottish Government should do? Jenny Gouris. I think that the Scottish Government should do it. Well, I thank Ian Gray for that intervention. In terms of where we go from here, I am going to discuss some of the issues that I came up against in the classroom in terms of the organisation of those structures. Actually, I think that it is really important that we look at the rhetoric of what Labour-run authorities do on the ground. It is a narrative that necessitates radical reform. For today's motion, to leap to the assertion that this Government's stewardship of education is failing teachers, parents and pupils is simply beyond parody. In the response to the governance review, all authorities were asked the question, and I would like to make some progress. Thank you. What changes to governance arrangements are required to support decisions about children's learning and school life being taken at school level? Here is what Labour-led Fife Council had to say. The review paper states that the wish to see more decisions about school life being driven by schools themselves, starting with the presumption that decisions about children's learning and school life should be taken at school level. However, there is no identification of what decisions about school life are not currently driven by schools, therefore it is not possible to identify at a local level what changes to governance arrangements are required. Let me declare an interest as a former principal teacher who worked for Fife Council. Let me tell you which decisions about school life are not currently driven by schools in that authority. First of all, resources. Procurement practice in Fife schools mean that staff have to purchase textbooks and jotters through a predetermined provider. It does not matter if you can source those resources cheaply elsewhere, you will pay what the authority has agreed to. I met a headteacher recently who was forced to use her school budget to pay the authority, her employer, £3,000, to have essential painting work carried out. That head knew that she could have the painting work done more cheaply through a local company but because of procurement she was not allowed to do so. Another headteacher in my constituency told me that she had to use her school budget to pay for the entire school to have Wi-Fi linked up, whereas across Fife and new schools, Wi-Fi is provided free of charge and her counterparts do not have the cost deducted from their school budget. My office submitted a freedom of information request to Fife Council last year, focused on this very issue. We asked for details of all spending on procurement by Fife Council annually since 2012 in each primary and secondary school in Fife. The response? The information that you have requested is subjected to an exemption in relation to section 17 of the freedom of information act. Labour notes Scottish Government figures that show falling numbers of teachers and support staff, yet across the water in Fife, Labour is currently proposing to cut 100 front-line teaching vacancies. The EIS has called the proposals— Sorry, please sit down. I do not want conversations. I know that we are all very passionate about this debate, but conversations are not helping. Please continue. The EIS has called the proposals a recipe for disaster, asserting that it will increase staff sickness, class sizes and pile further pressure on the education service. There is an abject disconnect between the rhetoric from Labour in this chamber and the reality in Labour-led councils. Talking of teacher numbers, in November 2014, I had a vacancy in my department. I was not allowed to advertise for a new teacher. Instead, another teacher who was employed by the authority on a four-day contract elsewhere was parachuted into my department from elsewhere. This teacher was employed in a permanent contract with the authority and Fife Council do this regularly. They move individuals around the schools according to contractual obligations. No cognisance whatsoever is given to pupils in this process. Eventually, a job may be advertised, but usually this is done internally, which does not allow for a wide range of applicants to be sourced nationally and, furthermore, works to protect individuals who are already employed in the council. Closing the attainment gap, I think not. When it comes to teacher vacancies, Labour-led Fife councils are resolutely focused on job protectionism. There is a narrative of resistance to any change running through Labour-led Fife Council's entire response to the governance review, which is absolutely reflective of that presented by today's motion. However, we have done it this way, argument no longer stacks up. In Levenmouth and Glenworth is today one in three children living poverty, the structural way in which education is delivered needs to be questioned. The OECD results have provided the catalyst for a shake-up of Scottish education. Is it time that the Labour Party got behind improving Scotland's pupils' life chances and really put kids before cuts? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. To begin with, I would like to thank Ian Gray for bringing forward this very important debate today on education in Scotland. I want to put on record my party's thanks to teachers, support staff and everyone involved in the hard work that is carried out on a daily basis today in our schools. At a time when workloads are increasing, it is imperative to thank them for their continued drive and ambition to ensure that the education of Scottish children is the top priority. However, over the past few months it has become clear that this has not been the top priority of this Government. From the following standards in numeracy and literacy to the fall in teacher numbers, education has taken a back seat. From the meeting of the Education Skills Committee, it has become evident that Education Scotland and the Scottish Qualifications Authority have lost the respect of many teachers and parents. From surveys and committee submissions, the committee has heard about the steady erosion of trust towards those education agencies from teachers and parents. Take, for example, the treatment of candidates for the SQA exams. I am sure that many of us remember the days of sitting exams, the hours of revision and the trepidation that we felt going into the exam halls. Perhaps a few more hours of revision would have reduced my trepidation, but anyway. The Scottish Association of Geography Teachers asked their members about the 2016 hire paper. 54 per cent said that it was poor.  That is not the only subject affected. In recent times, the new hire maths and computing exam papers had errors and were unlike specimen papers. At one point, a petition was signed by 20,000 pupils demanding the lowering of the pass mark for the national five mathematics exam, after it contained completely different content compared with previous exam papers. It might expect some teenagers to rebel, rebel and not without a cause, but not in their tens of thousands. Presiding officer, the situation is worrying. I am glad that, in November, Mr Swinney admitted that it is intolerable if there are errors in exam papers, but we are still left wondering if more errors will arise in future exams unless action is taken. Unfortunately, it does not stop with exam errors. The guidance distributed by the SQA regarding qualifications is lengthy, unclear and perplexing. The Education Committee heard how complicated it is to access this guidance. One example was that of physics, where 81 pages of guidance are spread over five different documents. I apologise. This is leaving teachers to drown in the sea of jargon. Drown in the sea of jargon are not my words, but the words of Dr Janet Brown, the chief executive of the SQA. Not only have many teachers been overwhelmed with jargon, but parents too. The national parent forum of Scotland was critical about communication and said that it could not take part in the survey about the performance of the SQA because people did not understand it. The survey matters. That has to change. We need clarity when it comes to guidance on national qualifications. We need to ensure that teachers and the SQA are singing from the same hym sheet, and we need to make sure that our school pupils face a consistent, trusted test. They will live with those qualifications for years to come. It is only fair that education agencies treat them with consistency. Our young people should not have to hit a moving target. In conclusion, action must be taken to ensure that both Education Scotland and the SQA can rebuild the trust of teachers and parents. Finally, I reflect on the words of the cabinet secretary, Mr Swinney, when he said that he readily concedes that the world of education is complicated. Well, let's keep it simple. One thing is absolutely clear. He should note the concerns raised in today's debate and set about fixing the problems to get Scottish education back on track. The main thrust of my speech will be around my role as convener of the Education and Skills Committee. However, I would be slacking my duty as an MSP if I did not comment on the tone, negativity and defeatism that oozes from the Labour motion. I am at a loss as to understand why Labour taking this depressing negative attitude to Scottish education helps pupils, parents or teachers. How does that constant criticism from that opposition anyway do anything to encourage teachers? It is an undoubted challenge to close the attainment gap. This is just the day after we have seen the best-ever figures for destination outcomes, and we are once again told by this no longer even opposition party that the chances of our children amounting to anything are slight. Why are they doing this? Because they have nothing left to offer but gloom and doom. They hope that by squeezing out any signs of positivity out of politics, people will go back to them. Fat chance have they learned nothing in the last 10 years. Local governments also need to be accountable for their role within the education system. Teacher recruitment is the responsibility of local councils and not this Government. If Mr Gray has questions about staff recruitment, then perhaps he should speak to his colleagues and authorities across the country. I wonder why every time we hear about the problems in education it is the fault of local government, but any time anything good happens it is because of the Scottish Government. James Dornan That would be a good point if it was factual, but the reality is that what we are talking about is teacher numbers here. The responsibility for teacher numbers does not lie with the Scottish Government. The responsibility for teacher numbers lies with the local authority. Everybody is quick to put the responsibility here, and it should go here where it lies here, but you have to take the responsibility at local government level if that is where it lies. Just like on the occasional point when you ever get round to it, you should criticise Westminster when it is there that responsibility lies as well, certainly, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson We know that the SNP Government has cut £1.5 billion to local government. We know from the Accounts Commission report just yesterday that more than 70 per cent of services spending by local government is going straight to schools. Will he take responsibility for his Government's cuts? That is the consequence. James Dornan I would love to be able to take responsibility for the fact that funding goes straight to schools. I think that I will give that credit to Mr Swinney, but we have to recognise that the figures came out to show that local authorities had huge reserves still, and that the cuts to local authority budgets were exactly in keeping with the cuts to the Scottish Government budget from Westminster. That is the one level of government that I never hear the Labour Party criticise, and it has always been a mystery to me about why that is the case. If you are serious about supporting education, we have had a different motion today, one that recognises where Scottish education is, but acknowledges that we still face numerous challenges and bring suggestions about how we face up to those challenges. I want to put my convener's hat on now. The first one was an MSP. It is nice having two faces for this. It comes in handy for politicians that I have been told before anyway. Others have discussed it. We will wait and see that, Mr Dornan. Others have discussed their review on the bodies beforehand. I now wish to discuss the information that was gathered by the committee on school education since the recent inquiry concluded. Before I do that, I would like to take time to thank the thousands of educators up and down at Scotland who have committed their time and careers to giving our children, young people and many adults, the best start they can. Educators and more than just teachers are often the only constant in the lives of some of our most vulnerable children, and I highly commend anyone who has the courage and the good will to enter into the field of education. Parents in Scotland want the best for their children, and it has been my pleasure to be able to meet with many parents who take an active role through many different organisations in the moulding of an education system. I also have the pleasure to visit a joint campus of St Margaret Mary's and St Conville's in Casimal, which is having a hugely positive impact on the vast majority of pupils and staff. That was after, as is very often the case, a very shaky start. Now everybody can see the benefit of it, although there are clearly still some issues. The committee had a chamber debate on the issues arriving from the evidence from teachers among others on 12 January, and I spoke in detail then in the forms of evidence that the committee had undertaken. The issues arising from it, so I refer members to that contribution. We also continue the focus and inclusivity by making sure that it hears directly from those with practical experience of school life at their best place to inform its work. For example, through various means, by my calculations we have taken views from over 200 teachers since inquiry into SQA, Education Scotland, SFC and SDS. That excludes social media comments received but includes five more focus groups, a school visit, formal evidence taken and written submissions from teachers on issues such as additional support needs and personal and social education. We also have the results of a survey sent to head teachers on subject choice in the curriculum for excellence senior phase. That number of teachers does not include those that contributed views and correspondence that we have received unprompted from teachers' collectives. So far, it is convenient that I am delighted with the progress that the committee has made in establishing itself as a conduit for the views of children, young people, parents and front-line staff. We are also very mindful of the diverse evidence that we hear in the challenge of analysing it to make recommendations to the Government. It is worth noting that a theme arising from a number of recent focus groups is the continued support for the curriculum for excellence. Beyond that theme, as you would expect, when you hear from so many individuals, you hear very different experiences. Each of the focus groups and written submissions are reflective of distinct experiences of different teachers and different settings, teaching different ages of pupils and different subjects. What this evidence also highlights, to me, if we really want to know what is going on in education, is that the committee needs to keep doing what we are doing. We need to keep going out to schools, keep holding focus groups and gather more and more information to further inform our work. The committee has also agreed to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny in the education bill and, of course, will lead on the scrutiny of the bill itself. It is crucial to ensure the best scrutiny that we are informed on are deliberations by all those with something to say. Although we have heard a number of concerns about how we could improve things in different aspects of education, nowhere did I get the sense of doom that the Labour Party motion dragged us down to. Let me finish by thanking all those who have contributed to our work and encouraging others we are yet to hear from to contact us with your perspective on school education. The website has a video on the front page that details all the different ways that you can get in touch. I urge everyone in the chamber to accept that, although there is much room for improvement, Scottish education is still something that we should all be very proud of. We should all make sure that our parents, pupils and teachers hear that message loud and clear. I call Ross Greer. I am grateful to the Labour Party for bringing forward this debate. The SNP Government has asked to be judged in this Parliament on its success in education, particularly on causing the attainment gap between the most and least deprived young people. The Scottish Greens focused our opposition business debate on education, and I am glad that the Labour Party has chosen to do the same. As Liz Smith said, we all agree on the principle of a high-quality education for everyone. The issue is how it can be achieved. Although I am glad that the Labour Party has brought this issue to the chamber today, I would have liked to have seen not just the issues but the solutions contained within their motion. I am reassured at least that the Government amendment has omitted the most controversial aspects of their education policy. It does not mention standardised testings or the deeply unnecessary education governance review. I believe that this Parliament remains completely unconvinced by the focus on governance and structure when the issues are curly policy, delivery and resource. Following the concerns raised by teachers, parents and others, the Government should consider whether the review will be a costly and time-consuming effort that addresses a question entirely different to the one being asked by so many. Where are the resources? Where are the staff? The staff that used to be there? An as-yet-abstract level of regional governance will not resolve that issue. The other major component of the Government agenda that the Greens do not believe addresses the major issues in education is the introduction of standardised assessments or the expansion of standardised assessments. There simply is not the evidence to suggest that those assessments of six-year-olds are needed. What teachers need is the time and resource to support their pupils. When not overstretched and overworked by the loss of colleagues and resources, they know their pupils as individuals and they can support their individual needs. The approach of standardised assessments to me runs counter to the principles of curriculum for excellence and the Greens will continue to oppose its expansion. It is easy to criticise, and I have done plenty of that in the education committee, including this morning, but we all have a duty to come forward with solutions. In the unselected Green amendment, we outlined specific proposals to improve education and the lives of our young people. We asked that the cabinet secretary takes these on board. I welcome the Scottish Government's movement on LGBTI inclusion in schools, but it is not yet enough. Nine in 10 LGBTI young people have experienced bullying in schools based on who they are. Many have even been driven to self-harm or attempted suicide, and despite new guidance in 2014, a culture of intolerance has persisted. The Education and Skills Committee received damning evidence of that in our recent round table, and we cannot continue to act as if nothing is wrong or expect guidance documents alone to resolve the issue. It would be a welcome first step today if the Scottish Government could at least agree to take on the two proposals for inclusive education from the TIE campaign that was outlined in the Green amendment. Explicitly recording all incidents of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools is vital. We look forward to ensuring that the Scottish Government and our local councils live up to their responsibility to LGBTI young people in this area. Proper training for teachers on those issues is also an essential step forward. It will finally undo the legacy of section 28, which we found still looms large over many schools. By ensuring that LGBTI issues are addressed in both initial teacher education and in free-to-access further training, we can take a meaningful step towards inclusive education for all of our young people. Jeremy Balfour Will he agree that the same training is also required for the other protected areas such as disability, race and gender? We should not put one above the other, but all of them should be looked at as a whole. I agree absolutely that all teachers require training on all issues of protected characteristics. I would take an intersectional approach to that, to all oppressed and minority groups. Indeed, I will cover that later on in the speech. With the majority of MSPs now signed up to the TIE campaign's pledge, I am optimistic that we will collectively ensure further progress towards genuinely inclusive education in this Parliament. For LGBTI young people in particular, that is a pressing issue that they cannot afford for us to wait. The Government must also ensure that all new teachers receive proper training on additional support needs. One in four pupils in Scottish schools have an additional support need, and as the definition has become broader, the training, the resources and the specialist teachers have not kept pace. Indeed, the number of teachers has gone backwards. One in seven additional support needs teachers have been cut since 2010. At the Education and Skills Committee's round table on ASM last week, we heard that teachers and pupils are not adequately supported, according to the damning evidence of a member staff being directed to watch the Big Bang Theory to better understand Asperger's syndrome. Although we should not read too much into a specific incident, it is indicative of the result of budget cuts and the erosion of ASM training. Again, I am sure that this Parliament will hold the Government to account if they fail to ensure that more training and more accessible training is available for teachers. Finally, the Green Amendment called for the Scottish Government to poverty-proof our schools. The EIS has run a great campaign on this issue, highlighting what schools can do across a range of issues, from hunger to homework. With one in five children in Scotland living in poverty, schools must be supported in the help that they provide to their young people. Although I am disappointed that our amendment was not selected, I would ask the closing speakers from all other parties to respond to what the Greens and what the EIS are calling for. The Government has at least acknowledged in its amendment the contribution of budget cuts, teacher workload and the exceptionally poor performance of some education agencies, including the SQA. Labour has well laid out the issues that are faced across the board, although, as I said, the Greens would like to see more solutions coming forward and not just the problems that are being highlighted. We will continue to propose the solutions that we believe are necessary to provide a high-quality, inclusive education for all of Scotland's young people. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very happy to participate in this debate. I recognise the privilege position that Mr Swinney holds as Cabinet Secretary for Education. I would contend the best job in government. I was a little sorry that it was not Mr Chipps that we got along today but Mr Angry. All of us who understand the power of education and have felt or seen its liberating power in supporting people to achieve their potential, who have watched their child struggling to learn or an adult celebrating learning for the first time, would relish Mr Swinney's job. The chance to make a real difference to Scotland despite its challenges. I know that the strategy for today is to say that all the Labour Party is being negative. Saying it does not make it so. It is because of my optimism about Scotland and my optimism about the potential of education to liberate our young people that I insist that the Scottish Government focuses on what it could do to make a real difference to people's lives. As we all know, it cannot simply be about caring for education. It is about effective action shaped by an honest understanding of the scale of the problem and an evidence-based approach on what will make a difference, what has been done and what is going to be done, based on whether it will make a difference to the lives of our young people. Although it is a strategy for this debate to delegate blame, we have had a manifest what about it coming from across the chamber. Frankly, members demean themselves if their only job is to delegate blame rather than to look at what the challenges of education confront. Fulton MacGregor For taking an intervention, can the member tell me who is to blame for the percentage of pupils who are getting higher, going up from 42 per cent to 60 per cent since 2007? Fulton MacGregor That well-prepared intervention goes down well, but it makes my point for me. That is not simply about who takes credit and who takes blame. It is about how we make sure that our education system is fit for purpose. I do not want to lay at John Swinney's door all the woes of the education system over the past 10 years. Indeed, as a backbencher long before that, I was willing to take on my own Government in what they were doing, my own local authority in what they were doing. I only wish that those who can give voice to criticisms of local government on the backbenches might find a voice occasionally to take on their own front bench. We know that John Swinney has only been doing this job since last May, but there is no doubt that his decisions as finance minister to cut local government budgets and disproportionately cut college budgets now make his job a great deal more difficult. There are massive challenges. As has been heard, I recommend to the chamber the measured and thoughtful report by the Education and Skills Committee unanimously agreed, which seeks to address the grave anxiety that our education agencies, in particular the SQA and Education Scotland, are creating. It is crash TV in an attempt to give people confidence and only throwing up more and more questions about what is happening in our schools. There is an issue about confidence for our teaching and other staff. The report was, in part, shaped by the evidence of teachers and overwhelming heartfelt response, giving voice to their frustrations of what they were expected to do and professional frustration at what was happening. There is something serious going on. If the Parliament is serious about being rooted in the real world, it needs to listen to that. The cabinet secretary approached to that report. The ministerial equivalent of nothing to see here just move on. Sadly, rather than reflecting on what the report says, the cabinet secretary settled for what is easy, full outrage in his debate rather than fierce determination to understand what is being said. He throws up a straw man or perhaps a straw person on International Women's Day. Of course, the evidence is not a balanced enough sample, but we know that what the report's responses said chimed with every bit of evidence that we have heard across the board. It will not do to belittle or impun the motives of those raising concerns. What an irony that this side of the chamber is accused of talking down teaching at the very time that the Government comes after those teachers who dare to raise their voices to say that there are problems. The truth is, in response to criticism, the Scottish Government has not opened up its thinking to what is possible in education. The cabinet secretary is not giving me way, cabinet secretary, to please sit down. Let me finish this point. The truth is in point of order. On a point of order, Presiding Officer, Johann Lamont has made a very serious allegation about the behaviour of Government ministers that we would somehow go after teachers for what they said in their response. I want the opportunity to ask Johann Lamont to withdraw that or to substantiate with evidence, because it is a very serious allegation of the conduct of ministers. First of all, it is a point of debate, not a point of order. You have put your comments on the record. Just continue, please, Ms Lamont. I am happy to withdraw those comments if that is how they have been interpreted. I made a very simple point that we are accused of talking down teaching at the same time as when teachers raised their voices in this report. It is suggested that their motives are because they have other access to ground. That is a fact of the matter. The Scottish Government has not opened up its thinking to what is possible in education policy. It is settled for the lines to take. No matter how good the cabinet secretary, the First Minister and the backbenchers part of them, that is all they are. They are things to do, but they do not add up to the serious, thoughtful, focused approach that is required. What does the Scottish Government need to do? It needs to stop settling for debating points. It needs to understand how threadbare the additional support needs supports are in our schools, listen to enable NUSUWT and others, recognise the challenges of numeracy and literacy and address the questions of curriculum for excellence, in particular the needs of national force students who, in my view, are being shown a lack of respect as young people, but also understand fully the causes and consequences of barriers to learning. Yes, in the end it is also about resources too. You cannot condemn local authorities for mating cuts when, over the past period, this Government has consistently targeted local government for those cuts. I hope that Jenny Goldruth recognises the irony in what she has said about the impact of cuts in Fife. We need a conversation across the chamber about how we properly invest in education, use those resources effectively and focus on the needs of young people because education is the means by which they can achieve their potential. Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by Clare Adamson. Mr Balfour, please. A tight six minutes. Since being elected to this Parliament, it has become clear to me and recognised by everyone that early years of life are the most important for learning. That is when the foundation for future are laid and when we begin moving down the path that will take us through childhood, teenage years and ultimately into adulthood. It is good that the Scottish Government states that it is committed to improving and increasing high-quality, flexible early learning and childcare that is accessible and affordable for our children and families. But education experts repeatedly stress the importance of maintaining a registered teacher workforce in all preschool settings and the added value that that specialist can give to nursery establishments. Indeed, the First Minister herself made a firm commitment when she was recently to make this a top priority for the Government. It was a way to close the attainment gap and the most effective work had to be done in the earlier years. Despite that, early learning and childcare teachers are down since 2007. In 2007, there were 1,672. Now, a 41 per cent decrease, a significant decrease in nursery teachers affecting all our communities. I would urge the Scottish Government also to end the birth-discriminating rule where we end up with some children not getting the full care that they are entitled to. In fact, some are getting as much as 400 fewer hours of childcare. We have debated this before. For several years, the Scottish Conservatives have urged the Scottish Government to address this discrimination. Our plea again to this Government is to do something now. It is wrong that a child loses out on hundreds of hours of nursery education purely because he or she is born in the long month. The discrimination also has a financial impact on families who are missing out on hundreds of pounds of free entitlement and is set to climb further when the increase goes from 16 to 1,040 hours per year in Scotland by 2020. This is not a complex thing to set out, but it should be done with urgency. I urge again the cabinet secretary and his colleagues to revisit the issue. The other issue that is affecting many children is the lack of flexibility. In 2016, fear funding for our kids revealed that two thirds of nursery places are only half-day, which means that, if you are a working parent, it is completely unsuitable. The report found out that 65 per cent of all nursery places in Scotland were half-days only, and 89 per cent of all council nursery places for three to five-year-olds were half-days only. According to new research by the Family and Child Care Trust in Scotland, inflation is bursting 4.5 per cent in the last year, and only one in four councils in Scotland are confident that there is enough childcare in their area for every parent that works full-time. The gaps are even bigger for parents who do not work regular office hours, shift workers etc, where only one in nine councils said that there is enough care available. Unlike England in Scotland, councils do not have a duty to make sure that there is enough childcare in the local area, and I would suggest that we need to revisit that urgently. Because of lots of councils' only award partnership funding for a year at a time, there have been cases where a child has had to move five times to different nurseries in their three to five-year period because of the change in funding and the change in relationship. Again, that is distressing for children and parents alike. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I turn to additional support needs? We go back to the report of the Naples Scotland published at the end of 2016. We are inclusive education is still far from the reality of many young people. That includes not just education but their friends and peers, what happens outwith the classroom and the opportunity to take activities for the whole school day. In addition, the number of people who are identified has increased with lots of different conditions. I welcome that because there has been a change in the definitions. However, I think that we need to revisit the issue of mainstreaming against those who go to special schools. Yes, mainstreaming should be for the majority of children, but I fear that we have moved too far away from looking at children who need that extra help that they can get in special schools. Too often, in my past years, I spoke to parents and visited different schools. I hear horror stories of bullying, of lack of achievement because a child has been moved out of a special school into mainstreaming. I think that we need to start the debate afresh, look at it again and take the principle that I know that the Government agrees with, that we look at every child, but that makes sure that funding follows that child to where it gets the proper education that he or she deserves and to make sure that the families around that feel that they are getting the support. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Tavish Scott. I declare an interest as a board member of the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre. Rarely have I felt so despondent about the debate, as I do today, about this Labour motion before us. Can I say to the diminished group on my right of the chamber that if parents and pupils and indeed teachers believed a word of their negativity, I would not be here as the constituency MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw, because I would not be here without their support. I think that the Labour Party strongly needs to reflect on this and its wrong representation of Scottish education this afternoon. In February 2015, the Government moved to address the following teacher numbers. It meant that the councils could not keep up the previous amount of teachers that they have. In North Lanarkshire Council, at that budget, they were planning to cut 126 teaching posts. When the Government stepped in to prevent that, Labour leader Jim McCabe said, a gun that is being held to her head by the Scottish Government and it is unacceptable. That is the reality of Labour councils when it comes to teacher numbers. Despite the bleeding, the Scottish Government took money in North Lanarkshire Council to maintain the teacher numbers. However, they are so utterly inept that they could not count them properly and had to hand back £713,000 that could be used for the education of people in North Lanarkshire Council and in my constituency. Ian Gray wanted to talk about his area today and that is what I want to focus. North Lanarkshire Council not only cannot count the teachers, it cannot monitor their contracts either. There is an on-going investigation that the press report has said that there is a potential 20 million overspend in contracts but they come to this chamber today blaming our Government for cuts. They should hang their heads in shame. I want to talk about the pupil equity fund in my area. £2 million is £67,600 coming directly to the head teachers in my area, and I will be really keen to see how each head teacher uses that money in my area. The school that is receiving the most is Berryhill Primary School in Cread Newke, £140,400 because it is in one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. It is the only school in the area because the Labour Council closed St Matthew's Primary a few years ago against the will of the local people. So there we have Berryhill being supported by this Government. What did the Labour Council do? A few months ago, the closed Craig Newke library, cultural vandalism against one of the poorest areas in our country, and I say again that they should hang their heads in shame. They are also cutting in Mavis Bank school, which is a complex additional support needs school. They are cutting instructors and early learning practitioners to be replaced by classroom assistants who cannot give these young people the one-to-one support that they need and yet they complain to us about support for additional needs students. What the opposition today will not talk about is the £1.4 million of educational maintenance allowance that came to North Lanarkshire Council from this Government last year. That money, keeping our young people in education—I am not taking any interventions, sorry—or certainly from nowhere will we talk about the £2.8 million of European funding that North Lanarkshire Council received in its budget last year, because goodness knows where that is going to come from after Brexit. They talk about failing our young people. The students of New College of Lanarkshire that I welcomed to this Parliament only a few weeks ago, because they had one gold, silver and bronze award at the world skills challenge, were certainly not being failed by this Government. Their achievements raised from music to technical make-up, artistry and to engineering, and they will go on to be part of the 93 per cent of young people around who are going to go to positive destinations, a highest level ever, and something that we should all be welcoming. And isn't it good that we accurately count these figures now? Because when Labour was in charge, they were happy to give money to challenge the not-in-education training employment category, give it to schools, and they had no mechanism to follow these children through. But this Government, and under Angela Constance as Education Minister, put in the information sharing with the colleges that would allow that to happen. So we actually do have accurate figures on what works now. And what about the £729 million of PFI cost that North Lanarkshire Council is going to incur for their PFI schools? £21.3 million going out of the budget to finance PFI initiatives. The schools built in our area under this Government will remain in council control at the end of those contracts. So Presiding Officer, I want to talk about Thornley Primary, one of the schools that get the pupil equity fund. They gave evidence here. Orson-Aidons High School, another pupil equity fund school who were finalists in the TESS awards only a few years ago. Let's get this right. I'll work with anyone who's serious about improving education in Scotland. The call to have a Scot to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Now it should be no surprise to the Deputy First Minister that when he studied the Ducks Board at the Anderson High School in Lowellwick, he only found one Scot on it, and he was right. It wasn't me, it was my sister. I also say that every time I go to Inverness Royal Academy in Inverness to see how my son is doing at his highest, I see Mr Gray's name at the top of the Ducks Board. So greatness is vested on many, but just not me in this particular occasion. Now, the other thing that John Swinney did this morning at the committee was that he accused me of brandishing a survey or a paper in a previous debate, and he got the better of me, I must confess. So I thought, what am I going to do today? And I thought, well, the Herald gives me another opportunity to brandish a piece of paper, because here today, after all, it has produced a league table. Yes, a league table. There hasn't been quite so much discussion of that, but I want to make a couple of serious points, actually, about what today in the Herald is actually some very thoughtful coverage of education in Scotland. Because what that league table does demonstrate is something very straightforward, that children from poorer backgrounds trail behind kids with well-off families. The attainment gap is wide and shows few signs of closing. In the top 50 Scottish schools identified using Scottish Government data today, seven of the top 10 schools have either none or fewer than five pupils from deprived backgrounds. Now, in fairness, most Scottish schools have a much greater social mix, but because deprivation has such a significant impact on exam performance, the tables reflect that schools serving middle-class areas do better. So, where now? There has been political consensus around curriculum for excellence, but politics has delivered cuts to school budgets over many years. As teachers in Shetland said to me at the weekend, classroom assistance numbers are down, there is less learning support, and we have increased class sizes. So, Scotland has implemented a new approach to teaching since 2011, and at the same time has seen cuts to the money available to our schools. On top of that, of course, it is important to recognise that the exam system has changed as well. So, it is no wonder that the implementation of curriculum for excellence has been so challenging. The results are worrying. They have been well rehearsed this afternoon already, and I will not add to that. So, what is to be the response to all that? Now, the Deputy First Minister is reading the responses to his review over who does what. He has introduced a direct but as yet limited funding stream to headteachers based on free school meals, but that means, in effect, that for schools the majority of funding still arrives via local government. I want to suggest that education needs more than anything is a change to the culture of conformity. Education does need cultural change, culture, as many argue, trumps structure. The very core of curriculum for excellence is to open out teaching, an engaged and an enhanced profession to provide a broad landscape for schools and to encourage innovation. Yet the opposite is more often what we find. If Scotland is to hold on to curriculum for excellence and to make it work and to deliver success for pupils and young people, we must be honest about what has happened since 2011 and learn from it. It was implemented by a government board who, as James Dornan's committee discovered, took no collective responsibility for what was happening, listened but did not act on teacher workload pressures and acquiesced while 20,000 pages of ever-changing guidance flooded the inboxes of every teacher in the country. It was not the curriculum for excellence management board stuffed with the educational good and great who have finally began to limit the endless centrally produced teacher guidance. I want to give credit to John Swinney for addressing that point since last year. So the government's review should start at the top with the Deputy First Minister's own department and his agencies. I suggest that he should separate school inspection from policy advice to ministers. That should be in Mr Swinney's office. It is logically paced there. An overall strategic plan is rightly Mr Swinney's responsibility. The philosophy of curriculum for excellence is to trust teachers. Let us prove it by doing it. Trust teacher judgment, trust teachers to deliver the very strategic plan that the government wants to introduce. So Mr Swinney should be clear about his national improvement plan. It should deliver results in areas where Scotland faces real attainment challenges. But it all should recognise that the top 50 schools in the Herald today do not need lots more guidance. They are delivering for pupils already. One size does not fit all, just as it is a failed philosophy across the whole public sector. Education Scotland has not worked and the SQA cannot be an arm of government, a regulator of exams and a monopoly service provider all at the same time. So change needs to happen. Cultural reform above all must be about schools. Today's Herald features the Vale of Leven academy, a school with high deprivation areas and therefore a real social mix of pupils. But their attainment challenge has absolutely improved. The higher pass rate there has risen from 67 to 71 per cent in just four years. Lots of things are detailed today which illustrate why. And a big well done to head teacher Paul Darwick and his staff for that. Scottish education needs innovation at the school level and an end to conformity. Supporting real school leadership, the sharing of good practice, school clusters, yes. Primary is linked to secondary. Schools need to be closer to colleges, to business and indeed to work. Now the Northern Alliance in the north of the country is leading on that and more to come. So instead of imposing everything from the top, let us look at how schools can be given. It's much more flexibility within curriculum for excellence and many more different ways of doing things such as Jim McCall's in... Jim McCall's technical school in Glasgow and engineering and on plumbing and in many other areas. The future has to be better, Presiding Officer. Let me finish with this. In a world of alternative facts, young people need the skills to sort out truth from lies where ignorance is not bliss, where experts do matter and can make the difference. Where tolerance of others is important and valued, where a moral compass and an open mind has never been more vital in the world we now live in. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Educators and others who work in schools and colleges across Scotland will rightly be angry at the wording of the Labour motion today and their apparent keenness to use our schools as a tool to attack the SNP. Clearly there are improvements to be made in our education system as has been acknowledged by the Cabinet Secretary, but Labour's constant attack on teachers and classroom assistants are shameful and their continued failure to recognise the good work that's been done in our schools is having the same demoralising effect on our teachers as their continued attacks on our doctors and nurses in the NHS. So let's look at the actual facts as has already been mentioned by others. The percentage of pupils who have achieved at least one qualification at a higher level or equivalent has significantly increased since 2007. 42 per cent of pupils were achieving this at that point. Now it's over 60 per cent. And I have to say, I know Joanne Lamont's left the chamber, but I do resent her accusation earlier when she took an intervention from me that that was a planted question that I wasn't somehow able to come up with my own question. It's clear to see that there have been improvements since SNP took office in 2007, which have had a positive impact on education in Scotland. It's great to see our fantastic teachers hard work paying off and it just shows how talented our youngsters are. The commitment for continually improving standards in our schools and ensuring that our young people have the opportunities to go on to work, education or training is reflected in the figures showing the percentage of our young people reaching positive destinations again, as others have already mentioned. In North Lanarkshire, the percentage of school leavers in a positive destination has risen from below 88 per cent in 2011-12 to over 92 per cent last year. I am confident in saying that schools across North Lanarkshire and my constituency of Coatbridge and Crescent are really reaping the benefits of this Scottish Government's commitment to education. We can now see excellent progress in aiding our young people in having the best possible chances in life and I'm delighted to see 66 per cent of school leavers in North Lanarkshire now going on to further higher education and 22 per cent of school leavers in employment. For my constituency of Coatbridge and Crescent, the statistics are even better with 91 per cent of high school leavers achieving a positive destination, which is something to take pride in while continuing to work to increase the amount of young people achieving that. I had the pleasure of leading a debate on apprenticeships last week and it is SNP's extra investment and focus over this last decade into apprenticeships that to ensure that our young people are equipped with necessary skills to ensure skill gaps are met and our industries can flourish. While giving our young people the skills they need to be at the forefront of their economy and jobs market, because at the end of the day college and university isn't for everyone and that is why it's important to offer opportunities, such as apprenticeships to young people to ensure they have the skills to take them forward in life. We should be celebrating the fact that Scotland has the second lowest youth unemployment in the EU and this demonstrates that we are taking positive steps in the right direction by investing in modern apprenticeships. During that debate last week I highlighted the need for more BME young people and young women to be offered apprenticeships and I think that this is worth highlighting again given today's international women's day and the excellent debate that was held here yesterday. Improving literacy is a key priority nationally and should be a key aim within North Lanarkshire. We know that improving literacy will help close the attainment gap and improve the life chances of our young people. I had the privilege of attending my old high school, Coltbridge High, for the literacy festival recently accompanied or accompanying, so I should say, the Deputy First Minister. It was a two-day event organised by the Skills Literacy Group, which allowed every pupil and department in the school to benefit from a wide array of workshops and interactive activities. The festival offered our young people the opportunity to experience an exciting range of speakers from across the expressive arts, allowing students to experience the rich diversity of the literacy world in their own school and that's something that's innovative, that's happening locally, to benefit pupils. And when I went to that school there, there's no doom and gloom then. Teachers getting on with it wanting to find ways to help pupils excel. As the cabinet secretary has said, we recognise that there are challenges. That is obvious, but this party is committed to closing the attainment gap. In my own local authority North Lanarkshire, as Claire Adams has mentioned, schools will benefit from almost £9 million. As part of the Scottish Government's drive to improve standards in schools. Broken down, that means 120 primaries and 23 secondaries across North Lanarkshire will receive additional support and funding that is for the teachers and school leaders to decide how best to utilise to close the poverty-related attainment gap. For my own constituency, that means £1.25 million for primary schools and almost £0.5 million for secondary schools across Coatbridge and Chrysyn. And can I just say that two of the secondary schools in my constituency, Coatbridge High, as I mentioned earlier, and St Andrew's have almost half of the pupils at the SIMD level 1. So that will be very welcome money indeed. That funding means children from the poorest. Backgrounds will receive additional support to stop them having their chances limited by circumstances outside their control. And I've said already, part of my constituency is in the top 10 most deprived areas in the country and I'm determined to help change that. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap is vital and I believe that 120 million pupil equity fund will play a central role in making this goal achievable. And this fund gives assurances to parents, teachers, school leaders and pupils that standards will be driven up an intergenerational cycle of deprivation and will be tackled. I can see, Presiding Officer, that I'm running out of time and I actually had quite a lot more to say about, for instance, nurtured groups and play as ways of helping young people there. But I'll just go straight to conclusion. Given that I've not got a long left, there is a lot to be proud of in our education system and, but undoubtedly, there is more to be done. This Government is up for the challenge. I am disappointed with Labour's motion today. The generations of people while I was growing up from Coatbridge, across Monklands and the central bell who in the past voted for Labour would be shocked to learn that this is what they use a valuable debate time as a now third party in this Parliament for. I urge them to start backing our teachers and young people and instead of constantly seeking to use our teachers and classroom assistants as a tool to criticise the SNP that should start being constructive and work with this Government. Thanks a lot. I call Miles Briggs to be followed by Gillian Martin. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak in today's debate and I want to support what's been said by Liz Smith and other colleagues. It's a matter of deep regret and alarm that 10 years of SNP Government seen a decline in educational standards in Scotland as evidenced by the PISA survey and a sense of drift and malaise that has been and has knocked the confidence of a system that used to be looked at as a world leader. That is in stark contrast to the significant entertainment improvements over the past decade in other parts of the United Kingdom and something we should all be concerned about across this Parliament. As a Lothian MSP I'm acutely aware of the concerns of so many parents in my constituency about educational standards and about the reduction in teacher and support numbers. At portfolio questions earlier today I highlighted the number of support staff working in secondary schools in Edinburgh and the fact that that's decreased by almost a fifth since 2010. One of the greatest falls anywhere in Scotland and told we had to blame SNP councillors running Edinburgh City Council and that's something I'll make sure we do in May at the council elections. But other written answers I've received from this Government indicate many additional and worrying staffing declines across a range of indicators. The number of teachers working in Edinburgh who have additional support needs for learning as their main subject has declined from 166 in 2007 to 120 in 2016. Within that data the number of additional support staff in education in Edinburgh's primary schools has fallen to just 27 down from 63 in 2007 and in Edinburgh secondary schools have declined from 70 to 44. West Lothian councils seen a similar decline in additional support for learning teachers from 92 to 62 in that same period of time. And the number of centrally employed teachers with additional support needs for learning as their main subject in Edinburgh and both West Lothian has also declined. As Monica Lennon said earlier across Scotland as a whole the number of additional support needs teachers has fallen to 2,896 down from over 3,400 just in 2009 yet the same time there's been an overall increase of 44 per cent since 2012 in the number of pupils with additional support needs with one in four Scottish pupils now requiring additional support. The Scottish Government makes much of its commitment to reducing the attainment gap and that's something I think we would all welcome but it's difficult to see how this is ever going to be achieved on the ground if school, support staff and additional support for learning teachers in our schools continue to be cut back so severely. The support for learning staff play a critical role in supporting pupils who may be struggling at school and their absence piles on the pressures to mainstream teachers and this is something ministers I really do think need to look to address with our Scottish councils. The inspection regime is also of vital importance in terms of assessing how our schools are performing and what improvements and requirements are needed at a school level. Again, it's generally concerning that the number of school inspections has fallen significantly since 2012 at primary school and preschool level as well as secondary school but it's actually specifically that fall and severe fall in the number of preschool level inspections where I think it's important that we look at that and how we are getting early education right and I believe ministers need to urgently look at how they are reversing that trend. Before closing, Presiding Officer, I wanted to also raise a specific school building issue of concern to local parents within Edinburgh and that is specifically with regards to Liberty High School because this is one of the last schools now in need of upgrading and replacement. It's a great school and has a strong and effective parent council but they want to see the refurbishment and investment to ensure that building offers the best learning environment for children and is truly fit for purpose and I think we need to look at how this has actually been taken over the next taken forward over the next five years of this Parliament. It's like I said one of the last secondary schools in Edinburgh City Council in need of replacement and in the spirit of consensus I hope the cabinet secretary will agree to meet with me the parent council and Edinburgh City Council to look at how we can take this forward as it's a vital investment in our young people in the south of the city. To conclude, Presiding Officer, today's debate is vitally important. Education is fundamental to individual success across Scotland, the success of our society and our economy and the SNP stewardship of our education system for the past decade has indeed let down parents, teachers and pupils. The Government's review of governance is a great opportunity to change things for the better and ministers must not let this opportunity pass. The new education bill can and must deliver our schools for our schools to ensure that we impair them and that there's a relentless focus on standards and attainment so that Scotland can once again begin to regain its place as a world leader in education. I would close with those remarks that like in health debates which I take part in this Parliament on a regular basis and listen to Fulton MacGregor's comments. I think that there's a really important thing we need to consider across our parties and it's this that our Scottish education system doesn't depend on the SNP, it depends on the teachers and support staff who deliver education day in, day out and I think it's time SNP ministers started to understand that. I call Gillian Barton to be followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you Presiding Officer. A few weeks ago as a member of the education committee I joined a group of teachers from a range of primary schools in this place to discuss issues that they face freely and confidentially. In the group there was a mix of new teachers, very experienced teachers, teachers in promoted posts and at least one recently qualified teacher in his probationary year. What struck me most about this meeting was the absolute dedication and passion that those teachers had for the attainment and welfare of their pupils. Many of the teachers taught in schools in areas of extreme poverty and deprivation and over the two hours of our meeting it became very apparent that the single factor was the main hurdle that they faced when working tremendously hard to get our children to achieve and learn. We had a very wide discussion of the challenges faced in certain schools and the associated expansion of the role of teachers to include social worker. One teacher told us that she as the deputy head often is the person who gets the children out of bed, clothes and feeds them and takes them to school. She's actually up early chopping doors to get the kids up and into school. They all said that the majority of issues that children had that impeded their learning and put considerable strain on the teaching staff were things that happened outwith school. And were issues that the children stem from their early years. There was huge support for the 1,140 hours of free childcare from a number of the teachers as a good way to target developmental issues at an early stage. Everyone present recognised the value of this and potentially alleviating some of the issues that those children face. I come from a family of teachers and those teachers were to remind me very much of my brother-in-law who trained as a primary teacher and worked initially in a deprived area of Aberdeen city and later went on to work in a specialised school for children with extreme behavioural issues. And he's now deployed back into primaries in the city as a behavioural expert. When he was a primary teacher I remember that they had a real problem with actually getting kids to the school gates in the morning. And many of the kids who did make it were making their own way there. A very high proportion of those children would also have their breakfast at school as there was no breakfast at home. One of the teachers started going in early to play football with the kids before school as an incentive to get more kids to come in. It worked. Those were children who often had no leisure interaction with any family members and the incentive of a game of footy before they went into the breakfast club was something that the kids looked forward to and would be the difference of staying at home between staying at home and going to school. After that meeting I was left in no doubt of three things. That the Scottish Government's increase in childcare provisions is a hugely important step in tackling educational and developmental issues stemming from poverty and deprivation. And the renewed focus on tackling neglect is also hugely important. I also found that given head teachers the autonomy to spend extra funding in their school through the attainment fund so that they can target specific issues that their pupils and teachers face is absolutely the right thing to do. Whether that be in additional support for learning, extra classroom assistance or something as fundamental as having a fully funded breakfast club, schools of differing needs and head teachers know those needs. And the third and possibly the most important thing was this. I know that tackling poverty is a fundamental priority of the Scottish Government. And we should all be asking for more welfare powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Because tackling poverty is not a priority of the UK Government and their benefits and sanctions regime I've actually had my time cut so I'm not going to take any interventions if you don't mind. I usually do so, sorry. Because tackling poverty is not a priority of the UK Government and their benefits and sanctions regime keeps people in poverty, drives people into poverty and will perpetuate the circle of poverty which cannot stand. Children cannot attain when they are hungry and neglected and schools cannot undo the effect of endemic poverty. As for teacher numbers I'm lucky to represent part of a local authority area which has a great administration who put together a budget that protected teacher numbers and credit where it's due alongside the SNP co-leader Richard Thomson sits the Labour co-leader Alison Evison we can work together and they work together and when they put forward their budget the alternative budget put forward to them by the Tory and Lib Dem opposition wanted to cut nearly eight million to the education budget and before I sit down I want to say this Mr Gray wouldn't take an intervention from me so I've put it into my speech he quoted an awful lot of people in your speech and I had a quote for you from one of your party members Liz Cameron the executive member for children, young people in lifelong learning in Glasgow city and she was in the evening times last night talking about the achievements of Glasgow city pupils and I'm going to read out her quote over the last 10 years more young people are staying in school as a result they have more qualifications and skills and make more positive destinations the increase in their staying on rates for S5 and 6 has risen 45 per cent in 2006 to almost 70 per cent of pupils and it's clearly reaping the benefits for Glasgow's young people so who do we give the credit for for that exactly exactly do we give it to Glasgow city council or do we actually start working together to say it doesn't matter who does it as long as someone does it can I say at this point that all members should remember to speak through the chair and not to each other and I call Jenny Marra to be followed by John Macal no more than six minutes please miss Marra thank you Presiding Officer I see it as my job as an elected member on opposition benches to speak truth based on the evidence before me whether John Swinney thinks instead we should be celebrating whether Jenny Gilruth thinks it's miserable and if Claire Adamson and Fulton MacGregor think it's negative so be it I will continue to analyse the evidence published by the Scottish Government in front of me and speak truth to the Government about my constituents concerns by its own report card the Scottish Government's funding of education in Dundee is falling and its record on education is not good enough let me stress Presiding Officer this is by the SNP's own standards its own targets its own manifesto commitments and its own pledge to the people of Dundee Dundee's schools have suffered more than the average Scottish cuts let me give some examples the SNP has a manifesto commitment to class sizes of 18 for primary 1 to 3 aged pupils across Scotland the SNP have managed to get 12.7 per cent of primary 1 to 3 pupils into classes of this size just 12.7 per cent in Dundee only 2.6 per cent of all children that age learn in a classroom with less than 18 pupils 2.6 per cent that's 122 pupils out of four and a half thousand by anyone's estimates call me negative tell me I should be celebrating but by anyone's estimates that is a broken promise and a huge failure of Government policy on school spending Dundee finds itself ranked 30 out of 32 local authorities only two councils in Scotland spend less than Dundee on primary school education and with one in four children growing up in poverty in our city we should expect the converse that more is spent where it is needed as Keads Dugdale has made the case for in 2010 Dundee spent over £5,000 per primary school pupil on education seven years later under the SNP Government every pupil in Dundee primary school pupil has nearly 900 pounds less spent on them 4,151 pounds per Dundee pupil only 99 pounds more than the lowest spend in the whole of Scotland John Swinney said in his opening remarks that school spending went up in Scotland last year Mr Swinney in some areas it did it did not in Dundee and why does the Scottish Government continue to preside over a system that allows the poorest local authorities to cut education spending while more prosperous councils maintain spending why will they not look to progressive taxation as the Labour leader has outlined when we learned a few weeks ago that additional support needs teachers had fallen by 14 per cent across Scotland it came as no surprise to me that I found that Dundee's cuts to ADS teachers totaled 28 per cent double the cuts in Dundee's schools and I refute entirely the Government's well-worn argument these past few weeks that ADS teachers are no longer as necessary now that ADS is being mainstreamed into classroom teachers jobs it always was and it always will be ADS teachers gave additional support to the children that needed it and now that support is much more difficult to come by as Monica Lennon told the chamber earlier I spoke to one ADS teacher who had gone back into classroom teaching because she was being asked to cover classrooms so often and not able to carry out ADS teaching this was due to teacher shortages in her school she figured she'd be better with a class of her own this government has undermined ADS staff and stripped out their resources we have all heard today the shocking figure that under this government 4,000 teachers have been stripped out of Scotland's school in Dundee since 2010 114 teachers have gone a drop of 7.5 per cent and then we look at the Government's own figures on reading and counting published just before Christmas if parents can have expectations of their children's time at school it is at least that they can read and count but we find that less than half less than half Mr Swinney of pupils in Dundee are achieving expected levels of numeracy by primary 7 less than half when the national average is 68 per cent and only just more than half 51 per cent are achieving expected levels of writing by primary 7 if you tell me this is something to celebrate I will get really angry this afternoon because you cannot disassociate the cuts of your government the cuts of spending over so many years the lower pupil spend per pupil in Dundee with these results and then you look at the attainment gap which is writ large over a map of our city only 20 to 30 per cent of pupils at Minas Hill's Gowery Hill primary school hit numeracy targets while if you take the number 73 bus down to Broughty Ferry we find that 90 per cent of pupils hit their numeracy targets and the ferry has the only Dundee secondary featured in the herald's list of top 50 state schools by exam results published today you must close Ms Marra I will what is SNP council's answer to this close Minas hill high school and swallow up into a now overcrowded bigger school Presiding officer I think these results for Dundee I'll tell a great story about the attainment gap and this government's priority and they should be dealing with it thank you The last of the open speeches is Joan McAlpine I can only allow you five minutes please Ms McAlpine Okay I want to start off by just quoting the Scottish local government financial statistics for 2015-16 published last week I think that they bear quoting again because they show that council spent 2.7 per cent more on education year on year in cash terms and 1.9 per cent more in real terms so Labour's assertion is simply not true there's also a contradiction at the heart of Labour's argument in this debate they claim the SNP is responsible for education all of our schools and they blame the government for any perceived failings that they have outlined but at the same time they ignore the fact that it's councils who are responsible for schools and they have acknowledged that councils are responsible for schools Yes I will Jenny Marra I thank the member for giving way I'd like to remind her member of how the SNP councillors remarks in Dundee when they said that the real problem in education is not who runs the school budgets it's the fact that the budgets are being cut Joan McAlpine Well I maybe shouldn't hear what I said at the open of my speech that the budgets are clearly not being cut councils are spending more on education I think there's no I've just taken an intervention I've only got five minutes sorry No I think you can't say on the one hand that the SNP is taking power away from councils in education and on the other hand say that councils don't have responsibility for education that just doesn't add up We've heard a lot today about examples of Labour councils failing to maintain teacher numbers I know that in my area in Dumfries and Galloway they often senior labour figures on the council regularly complained that they weren't being allowed to cut teacher numbers by Mr Swinney when he was finance secretary and fortunately they did press ahead with cutting the number of additional support needs professionals that was entirely the Labour council's decision and myself and others in particular parents spoke up about that but they insisted that they were doing it for sound educational reasons so again that is very much a local authority decision that I'm not surprised that Labour would like to distance themselves from I think it's interesting that the Scottish public when they were asked by YouGov last November who they thought should run schools only 21% of them said that they thought councils should run schools and I think that's probably to do with the track record of many Labour local authorities around the country cutting teacher numbers Earlier when Liz Smith spoke and what I thought was a more constructive speech than that made by many others in her party she said that curriculum for excellence should be assessed I left it too late to intervene in her speech but the point I wanted to raise with her is that the introduction of standardised assessment is surely a way to do this and that's another failure at the heart of Labour's argument pupils are currently being assessed using a myriad of different methods and these can't be compared and we want to see how curriculum for excellence is working and every single party in this Parliament supported curriculum for excellence we need to have a standardised picture across the country and it's interesting that Mr Gray and his colleagues have so much negative to say about leak tables which of course are not going to happen in Scotland but they're also very keen to quote from the international PISA leak tables of the OECD I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary has said that he is paying attention to the PISA slippage and is acting on the comprehensive advice from the OECD to tackle some of the issues in education but I think it's probably worth saying that we shouldn't take these PISA tables at face value Finland where all the parties in this Parliament have praised Finland has slipped in the PISA rankings the UK has slipped in some categories there's a big debate in the United States about their performance similarly in Australia so I think it's probably worth taking that into account that not everybody thinks that these PISA rankings are necessarily the only way that you should judge the success of your education system I think the way you judge your success of your education system is through outcomes and I think one of the outcomes that's really important is that Scotland has the second lowest youth unemployment in the whole of Europe and I think that's a reflection on what this Government has done in terms of education we also have record levels of advanced higher passes the second highest level of higher passes on records and of course we also have a record number of apprenticeships showing that there are opportunities for people of all abilities and that's to do with the hard work of our pupils our teachers and it's also to do with the policies of this Government thank you very much now moved to the closing speeches very tight in time my co-ross Thompson up to six minutes please thank you deputy Presiding Officer and I would like to extend my thanks to Ian Gray and the Labour Party for bringing this debate to the chamber today though I'm sorry to say that this afternoon has been a thoroughly depressing debate of course in no way meaning the members who contributed but the issues and the concerns and simply the facts of Scottish education today at one time Scottish education could have been debated with hope and optimism as a shining beacon of example to the world as Scots we hold enormous pride in our great discoveries and innovations such as James Watt's steam engine Alexander Graham Bell's telephone John Loggy Baird's television and Alexander Fleming's pelicin at Penisillun however where are these future leaders and innovators going to come from when today we've heard from across this chamber about an unfolding crisis of confidence within Scotland's education system as teachers who have lost confidence in the ability of Scotland's education agencies to deliver with standards in reading maths and science falling well behind other nations of the United Kingdom and in fact we're behind both Estonia and Poland those sitting on this side of the chamber are unequivocal that teachers are not to blame for this the blame lies with this SNP Government who for 10 years have been asleep at the wheel whose politics of lethargy have left us with a school system that quite simply isn't working as my colleague Liz Smith rightly points out the curriculum for excellence has been implemented and delivered poorly Scotland's schools can't ill-afford more feet dragging from this lethargic Government we need urgent and radical reform real reform the reform that Liz Smith set out in her opening and that the Scottish Conservatives are absolutely committed to in summing up this debate Ian Gray in opening waved an SNP press release denouncing English schools this is symptomatic of the SNP approach whether it is serious issues in health or education the SNP simply want to wash their hands of it either by talking about England or blaming Brexit a Government void of leadership and responsibility Mr Swinney in his opening attacked the tone of the Labour motion yet the tone of his own contribution was defensive in angry he stated that he refutes the motion however I would remind him that the motion opens with notes the evidence admitted to the education and skills committee now I'm not surprised that he wishes to refute this as it chimes with the nothing to see here response we've had from the cabinet secretary to date and as Joanne Lamont stated rightfully in her own contribution the committee has received an overwhelmingly heartfelt response from teachers that's what she said and that is so true they have highlighted where challenges are they've been laid bare and should not be refuted Monica Lennon rightfully articulated the challenges faced by councils ensuring proper support for pupils with ASN and the lack of resources and it is a really serious issue Jenny Gilruth I have to say I don't know what voices are in your own head but the voices I hear are those of teachers and parents who have given overwhelming evidence to the education committee and we should all hear their voices loud and clear further Ms Gilruth railed against EU procurement roles she must be one of those six SNP bashful brexitiers Bill Bowman talked of the lack of confidence in the SQA and Education Scotland and the importance of rebuilding trust and confidence in teachers and parents James Dornan in his contributions said education is the responsibility of councils and not the Scottish Government and why aren't you blaming Westminster well if he had said Brexit he would have had a full house with that one Ross Greer mentioned very importantly the support for TIE and I am on record in giving my own support to TIE and I'm delighted that there's a majority in this Parliament and as I asked the Cabinet Secretary of Committee we need to see urgency from government and delivering on it Jeremy Balfour highlighted the inherent unfairness in birthday discrimination where we have what something was on these benches we have long opposed Tavish Scott was absolutely right to raise a serious issue that Scotland's poorest children are nearly three years behind children from affluent backgrounds which is deeply worrying and we also support that call that Education Scotland cannot be judge and jury that we need a separation of ministerial advice and inspection Miles Briggs talked about the worrying staffing declines in Edinburgh Julian Martin I would gently remind her that when she talks about cuts that this government has cut 150,000 part-time college places now that is something that is shameful Jenny Marra is correct that the government may not want to hear the reality of education on the ground and that is our job to highlight it and to challenge the government even when they want to stick their fingers in their ears Deputy Presiding Officer the Scottish Government tell us that education is their defining mission but from the damning evidence that we have heard in today's debate if this is how the Scottish Government deals with a defining mission I dread to think about the areas of government which do not gather the defined attention of government ministers this government's true mission only ever has been and only ever will be their transcending belief in independence independence at all costs even if it costs the potential and opportunity for the next generation it is time for the Scottish Government to get back to the day job to ensure that all of Scotland's young people have the opportunity they deserve to achieve their full potential and when the SNP don't can't or won't stand up for education in Scotland the Scottish Conservatives will thank you I call John Swinney up to seven minutes please cabinet secretary Presiding Officer Ross Thomson said that I follow the nothing to see here approach to the debate and education and I don't think in any way that would be a fair characterisation of the approach that I've taken to office since I became the education secretary last May where I have quite openly and honestly come to Parliament and confronted difficulties that we face and Liz Smith his colleague sitting next to him acknowledged that when I dealt with the PISA results in December which is why the amendment in my name is in my view a balanced assessment of Scottish education it acknowledges that despite the progress that's been made on improving attainment in Scotland which are undeniable statistics about the improvement in performance there remain significant challenges in closing the attainment gap in raising standards for all I acknowledge the wider challenge that exists within Scottish education including budget pressures the wider impacts of poverty on educational opportunity and the necessity of looking at some of the work which Mr Greer made mentioned to this in his comments about the work that the EIS have brought forward on poverty proofing around the impact of poverty on school education and these will be for Mr Scott made that point that poverty is an undeniably significant factor on education and I've acknowledged in the amendment the challenges of teacher recruitment of teacher worklog and I've done a number of things as Mr Scott again recognised to tackle teacher workload in the short period of which I have been the education secretary so I don't think it's a fair characterisation to say that I that I'm taking a nothing to see here approach because I'm engaging very directly in the issues and the challenges that are raised with me by the teaching profession the length and breadth of the country in my regular and systemic discussions with them I'll give way to Mr Greer Ian Gray I'm grateful to him for giving me a very specific point I think he did indeed listen to teachers when it came to workload and unit assessments in national forum at the time I was happy to welcome that there's been some evidence since then that the changes SQA have made to replace those assessments will create as much if not more teacher workload and I wonder if he intends to take any further rounds John Swinney I'm very actively addressing that issue because the consequence and this is a very good illustration of the challenges that I face that on the one hand the desire which was made by the professional associations to remove unit assessment from national 5 it causes implications about the borderline candidates between that 4 and that 5 and there are very real challenges there but it's a consequence of there being unanimity within the professional associations of wishing there to be a removal of national 5 and I'm trying to address that issue and I'm trying to address it as effective as we can Now Mr Greer asked us to address in the summing up the issues that were raised in his unselected amendment and I have addressed some of those in relation to poverty and poverty proofing already but I acknowledge and we had a helpful discussion about this I thought at committee this morning about the importance of addressing additional support for learning needs recognising the broader needs that young people have but specifically the Government is committed to working with local authorities and schools to have in place the resources and the support to ensure that every child gets the support that they require that is an essential part of a commitment of getting it right for every child and the committee discussion with me this morning recognised and acknowledged the importance of ensuring that was focused on the needs of young people and equally the points that are raised in his amendment about the implications for the LGBTI community in Scotland of two things of one making sure that the personal and social education that relates that is delivered to young people through the health and wellbeing aspect of the curriculum takes due account through account of LGBTI issues but that we also address the issues that involve recording incidents to make sure that we have a due and proper record of the experience of young people so that can be tackled and addressed is an important part and equipping our teachers with the knowledge through the initial teacher education of what can be done to address those circumstances and I happily give that response to Mr Greer today. Tavish Scott raised a number of different issues about the issues on the reform of Scottish education and I thought made a very substantial contribution to the debate about this point. I agree with him that the culture of conformity needs to change and that we need to have an approach which develops and deploys the flexibility in individual schools to address the needs of young people. That is essentially the question that is posed at the heart of the governance review and I would point out that the governance review is rather dispatched in the Labour motion as something we shouldn't be doing but I think and I'll be interested to hear what others have got to say about this I think there is a need for us to look at issues of governance so I'll therefore be a bit surprised to hear the explanation from the Conservatives of why they will potentially support the Labour motion given the fact that Liz Smith has just nodded her head when I said there is a need for governance issues to be addressed. Mr Scott made a very important point about the fact that real leadership needs to exist in our schools to be able to deliver quality learning and teaching and I'm absolutely in agreement with him about that particular point. Now this has not been a particularly great debate for Scottish education and I suppose it was summed up in a sense by the comments that were made by my colleague Gillian Martin in drawing her remarks to a close where she quoted the convener of the Education Committee of Glasgow City Council Bailey Liz Cameron who's a Labour member and who made comments which Gillian Martin put on the record which were very positive remarks about improvements in Scottish education over the course of the last 10 years since 2006 and Gillian Martin asked the question who's responsible for that and Ian Gray shouted from a certain position Glasgow City Council. Well Glasgow City Council cannot at the same time be responsible for the great achievements in Scottish education which have happened where the SNP has been in Government and the SNP Government is responsible for all the failures and I simply put that that's why I put forward my amendment in the way that I put it forward. As a balanced assessment of Scottish education which says there are undeniable improvements and strengths in Scottish education there are nobody can deny them 30% increase in hires achieved highest level of advanced higher qualifications in history all been achieved but there are also challenges problems issues that need to be addressed and I want to tell Parliament this afternoon I'm absolutely determined to address those issues I've called Daniel Johnson to close the debate until around a minute to five please Mr Johnson Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer Ian Gray opened this debate by stating that the Government's track record doesn't begin in 2016 when it comes to education that it exists within a context and a history and he's absolutely right because the Government has had a decade in charge of education and it has a record already and when you look at the numbers that record is clear in 2007 there were 55,000 teachers in Scotland now there are fewer than 51,000 a fall of 4,000 in 2007 there are 21,300 support staff now there are fewer than 20,200 a fall over 1,000 in 2007 the average primary class size was 22.8 now it's up to 23.5 as spending on our schools has gone from 5.1 billion to 4.8 billion and the Sutton Trust report spells very clearly that pure but bright pupils are now falling substantially behind their well-off peers with a gap of 31 months a gap that is growing and alarmingly in science, maths, reading and reading Scotland's education system used to be ranked 10th, 11th and 11th in 2006 and now we have slipped according to the OECD ranked 19th, 24th and 23rd so the Scottish Government say that education is their top priority and that they want to be judged on their track record well I say this that the track record is clear and is not one that is good so while John Swinney may be relatively new to his job his government is not and his reforms and especially the what is needed largely fall at his door because it is resourcing an investment that is the key to looking at why we have seen these declines now I think the way that John Swinney opened the debate for the SNP and the government says much about his approach because he railed against our motion said it was miserable but in so doing he failed to acknowledge the wider problems that the wider evidence out there the other opinions the criticisms which are there he only sort of pointed to the attainment gap as being the only thing that he would point to as a challenge and that is the whole problem indeed I think his PLO did a better job of acknowledging some of the issues that they're faced it was Jenny Gilruth who pointed the lack of faith and confidence from teachers in the SQA and that t