first class - scottish conservatives · have held the power to chart a bold new course for our...

First Class

FROM NURSERY TO UNIVERSITY:

ESSAYS ON IMPROVING SCOTLAND'S EDUCATION

INDEX

Introduction 5Ruth Davidson MSP

Why Tradition and Freedom both matter 7Lindsay Paterson, Professor of Education Policy at Edinburgh University

Two cheers for Curriculum for Excellence 13Keir Bloomer, independent education consultant

Follow the child 24Alison Payne, Research Director, Reform Scotland

Hard knocks 30Sophie Sandor, Edinburgh University student

The real enemy 33Chris Deerin, journalist

A better way 36Alex Massie, freelance journalist and blogger for The Spectator

A challenge in itself: the college sector in Scotland 41Sue Pinder OBE, Former Principal of James Watt College

Scotland’s universities need plenty of help to stay ahead of the game 48Professor Pete Downes, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Dundee University

Ask not what our schools do for them: The contribution of children with disabilities to education in Scotland 55Sophie Pilgrim, Director of Kindred Scotland

Headteachers need and want a coherent vision for Scottish Education 61John Low,Former rector of Breadalbane Academy and head of Perth Grammar School

Family values should support our young people not state interference 66Elizabeth Smith MSP, Scottish Conservative Spokesman on Children and Young People

FOREWORD

The genesis for this short book of essayscame about in mid 2014 in the run up tothe referendum vote. Whatever the result,it was clear that – immediately after a Novote – people would want an answer tothat simple question: what next? For theScottish Conservatives, the question ofhow we improve our education system inorder to give all young Scots the bestopportunities possible is of paramountimportance. Hence our decision tocommission this series of essays on thefuture of Scottish education, from nurseryright through to university.

It is important to note what this book isnot. It is not a list of policy proposals. It isnot a manifesto. Nor is it even a collectionof Conservative party thinking; with theexception of a minority of contributors, thewriters are not members of theConservative party and are not affiliated tothe party in any way.

The book is an attempt simply to kick-starta greater focus and a wider debate aboutour education system. This debate, in ourview, has been neglected in recent years.Our aim here is to air the thoughts of just afew of those whose views deserve to beheard more widely. Our contributors - whoinclude academics, journalists andteachers – were approached for theirknowledge, their perspective, and for theiroriginal insight into some of the intractableproblems facing the education system wehave created. They write without fear orfavour. We hope politicians of all colourswill find time to read their views, and tochallenge their own thinking as a result.

The fact is that the debate around Scottisheducation has ossified. This must nowchange. Scotland’s forgotten educationdebate is too important to be ignored anylonger.

It remains to thank all the contributors foragreeing to set out their thoughts. We areextremely grateful for the time they haveput in, and the effort involved.

November 2014

“For the last three years, andarguably longer, the debate overconstitutional change in Scotland haspre-occupied our political class. Theindependence referendum debatewas necessary and invigorating – butit cannot be disputed that therelentless focus on the constitutionhas crowded out debate on othercrucial parts of public policy. Thisimbalance must now be righted.”

Ruth Davidson MSP

INTRODUCTION

For the last threeyears, and arguablylonger, the debate over constitutionalchange in Scotland has pre-occupied ourpolitical class. The independencereferendum debate was necessary andinvigorating – but it cannot be disputedthat the relentless focus on theconstitution has crowded out debate onother crucial parts of public policy. Thisimbalance must now be righted.

Nowhere is that more necessary than inthe field of education. The ScottishGovernment has complete control overevery step of our children’s path fromnursery to University. Yet all too rarely dowe hear a vigorous and passionate debateabout the direction of their policy. It is timefor us to reset the compass – no morebackward glances from government on areferendum whose question was askedand answered, rather a focus on thecrucial task policy makers have in directingchange today.

The Scottish Conservatives are clear. WhileScottish administrations since devolutionhave held the power to chart a bold newcourse for our nation’s schools, they haveducked this challenge. In place of longoverdue reform, they have too oftenretreated into a ‘Scottish exceptionalism’which closes its eyes to thetransformational change that has sweptthrough the delivery of education acrossmuch of the world. And Scotland’seducation system is the poorer for it.

Reforms to promote educational choice,decentralisation and diversity of provisionhave been driven forward from New

Zealand to Poland and from Denmark tothe United States, raising standards andimproving the life chances of pupils. Butsuccessive Scottish governments havestood inflexibly against such innovationand modernisation.

We need to face up to some hard facts.According to the annual Scottish Survey ofLiteracy and Numeracy, thousands ofScottish pupils fail to meet basic levels ofreading, writing and counting. Internationalperformance comparisons show Scotland’sschools treading water, while many othercountries race ahead. There is a continuingtrend of general attainment levels slippingback between the middle years of primaryschool and the early years of secondaryschool. Last year fewer than 3% of pupilsfrom the poorest backgrounds got three ormore ‘A’ grades at Higher level, comparedto 20% of those from more affluent homes.

Our view is that Scotland’s unreformed,one-size-fits-all comprehensive system isfalling short, and its failings are mostchronic for those children who begin lifewith the fewest opportunities.

So when the case for change is so clear,why has so little been done? Where is thedetermination from government to give thesame choice and opportunities to poorerfamilies that are so often taken for grantedby the more affluent? Where is the politicalcourage to confront the special interestswhich stand against change? ScottishConservatives believe that educationalreform should be founded on common-sense principles - more parental choice;rigorous testing; the transfer of

responsibility from Council bureaucraciesto individual schools and a determinationthat every pupil everywhere should havethe same opportunities through a goodgrounding in core, traditional subjects. Ofall the challenges facing Scotland today,the cause of education reform is the mostimperative. The inertia, entrenched specialinterests and excuses of past years can nolonger be allowed to stand in the way ofthe change that is so demonstrablyneeded. We want a vigorous debate tobegin. We want to see our views, and theviews of others, tested in the public forumso that we find a way to improve oureducation system.

This book represents our effort to helpstart that process. Nearly all of thecontributors come from outside theConservative party. Some are sympatheticto our proposals; others will, doubtless,disagree with our plans. As is noted in theForeword, the aim here is not to set out apolicy platform but to fire up interest, tochallenge received wisdom, and to provokefresh thought.

In a Scotland which is too easily satisfiedby unchallenged orthodoxies, and as partof a world which is changing at an evermore rapid pace, this is a debate ourcountry needs. It is a debate the ScottishConservatives are resolved to lead.

Ruth Davidson MSPLeader of the Scottish Conservative andUnionist Party

WHY TRADITION AND FREEDOM BOTHMATTERCurricular change ought always to beaccompanied by a cultural debate, adiscussion of what matters from the past.That has not happened in Scotland, saysLindsay Paterson, Professor of EducationPolicy at Edinburgh University.

Scotland likes to think of itself as enjoyinga consensus about education. It is the landof the democratic intellect, a place wherelearning is supposedly free and respectedby all. It prides itself on discussingeducational topics without rancour, onthere being a consensus around recenteducational reforms. There may be somearguments over resources, but theprinciples are intact.

But there are two versions of Scottisheducational principles now being practisedin the UK, seemingly in stark contrast witheach other. One is in the Curriculum forExcellence, as agreed by all politicalparties in Scotland, and by most shades ofprofessional opinion. It is radically child-centred, placing ‘the child or young person… at the centre of learning provision.’1 Itconcentrates on action not contemplation,on outcomes not on traditions, on ‘what achild or young person should be able to doand the experiences that contribute to theirlearning, rather than detailed definitions ofcontent or prescribed hours of study.’2 It isa supreme instance of what the formerEducation Secretary in England, MichaelGove, called ‘hostility towards traditional,academic, fact-rich, knowledge-centred,subject-based, teacher-led education.’3

And that, by contrast, is the second versionof Scottish educational philosophy – Mr

Gove’s, practised in England but deeplyScottish in its ideas: ‘having grown up inScotland,’ he has explained, ‘I identify theprinciple that all should have access to thebest with the Scottish Enlightenment idealof the Democratic Intellect. It is an idealwhich underpins everything I am arguingfor.’4 He describes it as embodying ‘everycitizen’s right to draw on our stock ofintellectual capital.’5 The democraticintellect is democratic because theintellect is empowering: ‘for those whogrow up in homes rich in knowledge, whereconversation is laced with learning andchildhood curiosity is easily satisfied,future learning is made easier, deeperunderstanding comes more readily.’ Forthose who do not have that privilege, onlythe public education system can make upthe absence: ‘for those of us who were notbrought up in such homes the need for aneducation rich in facts and respectful ofknowledge is all the greater.’6

So there we have the two Scotlands:liberation through spontaneous freedom,through action, through breaking loosefrom stultifying tradition; and liberationthrough initial humility, through enteringinto a rich legacy in order to learn fromcenturies of accumulated knowledge howto emulate the best. The Curriculum forExcellence has so completely come todominate the Scottish consensus, and MrGove is so execrated by liberal opinion inScotland, that the contrast even becameone part of that vast utopian radicalismthat underpinned the Yes campaign in thereferendum on independence. Thejournalist Lesley Riddoch, prominently partof that campaign, wrote in August 2014:

1. p.22 in Scottish Government (2008). Curriculum for Excellence: Building the Curriculum 3. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.2. p. 5 in ibid.3. p. 20 in Gove, M. (2008). ‘Higher standards, freer minds’. Haberdashers’ Aske’s Education lecture, 18 November.4. p. 4 in Gove, M. (2009). ‘What is education for?’. Speech to the RSA, 30 June.5. p. 2 in ibid.6. p. 24 in Gove (2008), ‘Higher standards’.

WHY TRADITION AND FREEDOM BOTH MATTER

Scottish education now aims to developdeeper learning with pupils trulyunderstanding subjects rather than justregurgitating facts and figures – a changedevised by the last Labour/Lib DemScottish Government and implemented bythe SNP. In other words, there is a settledwill in Scotland to have an educationalsystem which spends less time examiningand dividing pupils, … combines practicaland abstract knowledge and crossessubject boundaries in learning.7

About the only point in common betweenMs Riddoch and Mr Gove is in handingcontrol of this to teachers, but for two quitecontradictory purposes. Ms Riddoch wouldtrust them in the way that we might trust adoctor to be the best judge of a patient’ssymptoms, the person best-placed tounderstand what needs to be done inpractice. Mr Gove would trust the teacheronly to the extent that the teacher is anexpert embodiment of tradition and,through that, of valid authority.

This contrast is not new, and not justScottish, and the debate between themgets to the heart of the difficulties whichany society faces in deciding how toprepare young generations for the futureand yet also to maintain and renovate itsvaluable traditions from the past. Mr Govemay be provocative, but his public mannerdoes not detract from the force of his case.Curriculum for Excellence may be vaguebecause it concentrates on the child, noton what the child must learn, but noteacher, not even one enthusiasticallyfollowing Mr Gove’s ideas, could remaineffective if the needs and interests andpersonality of each individual child wereignored.

Neither can the two sides of this argumentbe neatly assigned to political ideologies:in truth, there are right wing and left wingversions of each. Child-centred educationhas, since the 1960s, usually beenassociated with what we might call theromantic left, and certainly the hostility ofMargaret Thatcher’s government to ithelped that link to be maintained. In the1960s, the ideal of child-centredness wasto liberate children from what was felt tobe the dead hand of tradition and ofunwarranted authority. No longer was thecurriculum to be divided into subjects, andno longer were children studying it to beseen and not heard. Learning was to beactive. It was to be based on projects inthe real world, which would draw onseveral school subjects since real-worldproblems do not come divided intodisciplinary bundles. Children would beencouraged to follow their interests sinceonly when engaged emotionally does achild learn very much. So teachers werewhat later came to be called facilitators orconsultants, though the 1960s rhetoricmight have preferred words such asliberator: the teacher would advise,encourage, perhaps cajole; but would notimpose.

The seeds of Curriculum for Excellence arethere in that ferment of left-wing anti-establishment radicalism that the 1960sspawned. The scope was made muchgreater by the internet, so that it becamepracticable for children to discover thingsfor themselves. Schools would becomewhat one of Tony Blair’s educationaladvisers called ‘learning networks’8, inwhich the teachers would not even beguides to knowledge, being, instead,counsellors on how to learn.

7. Riddoch, L. (2014). ‘Let’s concentrate on real debate’. The Scotsman, 10 August. 8. p.183 in Bentley, T. (1998). Learning Beyond the Classroom. London: Demos.

Yet child-centredness is much older thanthe 1960s, and also much morephilosophically distinguished than the right-wing caricatures of that indubitably naïvedecade might lead us to believe. The ideasgo back ultimately to the great freeing ofEuropean thought which came with theeighteenth-century Enlightenment: MrGove’s opponents have their origins thereas firmly as he does. They were expressedmost eloquently by Rousseau, challengingstale authority. They were developed byEuropean Romanticism in the earlydecades of the nineteenth century as arebellion against the most barbaroustreatment of children during the earlyphases of industrialism – what Dickenscastigated to great effect in Hard Times,and what Robert Owen tried to counterwith his pioneering child-centred schoolingat New Lanark. And they became anintellectual movement by the earlytwentieth century, led by philosophicalradicals such as Bertrand Russell, butcoming to permeate some of the mostinfluential currents of educational thought,such as the report on secondary educationof the Scottish Advisory Council onEducation in 1947: ‘the good school is tobe assessed not by any tale of examinationsuccesses, however impressive, but by theextent to which it has filled the years ofyouth with security, graciousness andordered freedom.’9 That is not anarchy,but it is very firmly child-centred.

So child-centredness has deep roots,including deep Scottish roots, and is by nomeans the passing whim that Mr Govesometimes, in his more extravagantmoments, likes to suggest. It also, wemight add, has impeccably right-wing roots,too, finding expression for example in the

origins of outdoor education, but mostnotably in the sphere of vocationaleducation, where the challenge ofpersuading disaffected young people is thecentral question facing educational policy.That role for student-centred educationfirst came to prominence in the 1930s,and was intensified during Mrs Thatcher’sgovernment of the 1980s, so much so, infact, that even some very left-wing writersabout education could praise what one ofthem – Stephen Ball of London University– called ‘vocational progressivism’ formaintaining the principles of the 1960s.10

The current belief that education is a routeto social mobility belongs to this way ofthinking: there could be nothing morestudent-centred than thinking of educationas a route into a worthwhile career.

Yet, counter to that, is the tradition whichinterprets the democratic intellect as beingfirst of all about the intellect, and aboutshaping it by immersion in a tradition ofenquiry. Just as the child-centred ideas areoften – inaccurately – thought of as thepreserve of the left, so this tradition isoften thought of as belonging to the right.It is true that some of the most cogentexpositions of these ideas have come fromconservative thinkers. Professor MichaelOakeshott, philosophically conservativethough never politically partisan, deploredin 1975 the tendency to seek ‘relevance’ inthe curriculum, or to equate education with‘socialisation’. It was not even enough, hebelieved, to encourage ‘general’ education(in the manner, we might add, ofCurriculum for Excellence). ‘Learning tothink for oneself’ or cultivating‘intelligence’, or inculcating ‘certainintellectual and moral aptitudes’, desirablethough these implied ends might be, can

9. p.10 in Scottish Education Department (1947). Secondary Education. Edinburgh: HMSO.10. pp. 101-19 in Ball, S.J. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education. London: Routledge.

never be achieved in the abstract.11 Theycan be developed only in contact with aculture, with a tradition of thought, withwhat the nineteenth-century liberalMatthew Arnold called ‘the best that hasbeen thought and said.’ Mr Goveadmires Arnold, and it is to that traditionthat he and the Scottish democraticintellect mainly belong. Mr Gove’s criticsgenerally reject this tradition asinvidious, exclusive, and – contrary toCurriculum for Excellence – placing thesubjects that are to be learnt ahead ofthe person who is doing the learning.

Yet it is as inaccurate to describe this wayof thinking as being of the right as it is toportray child-centredness as being onlyabout left-wing anarchism. Oakeshott’simmediate predecessor in 1951 asprofessor of political science at the LondonSchool of Economics was Harold Laski,firmly on the left, and one of the mostinfluential of socialist thinkers in Britain inthe period between the wars. Marxistthough he was, he respected – evenvenerated – the past: he wrote in 1930that ‘what … it is essential for the studentto encounter is the great mind which hasformed the civilised tradition.’12 R. H.Tawney, more than any single person theshaper of the Labour Party’s ideas oneducation between the early 1920s andthe 1960s – and, like Laski, a professor atthe L.S.E. – believed that ‘no one can befully at home in the world’ unless they areacquainted with the cultural traditions ofsociety, in which he included ‘literature andart, the history of society and the

revelations of science.’ 13

And, for Scottish debate, the associationbetween these ideas and the principles ofdemocratic intellectualism arefundamental. It was not child-centrednesswhich lay at the heart of that tradition butrather a veneration of the intellect, anultimately Calvinist belief that the goodperson can be shaped through the mind,though with an admixture of Catholicrationalism and of socialism of the kindwhich Laski and Tawney expressed. Morethan any other, one Scot in the twentiethcentury combined all these currents ofthought, A. D. Lindsay, philosopher, Masterof Balliol College, Oxford, founder of theUniversity of Keele in 1951, and a son of aPresbyterian manse in Glasgow, Labourpolitician, and – in the 1930s – publicopponent of appeasement. He summed upthe importance of both tradition andradical innovation succinctly: the centralproblem of educational policy, he said, isfinding ‘a standard which [i]s corrigible andprogressive, creative and authoritative.’14

To this end, the study of a canon of Englishliterature was – for this socialist –democratically indispensable: ‘anunderstanding and appreciation of Englishpoetry, of its history and its relations to thehistory of English culture, is a far moreeffective way of teaching a commonoutlook on the world, and a commonunderstanding of our heritage, than atechnical instruction in Philosophy.’15

Moreover, not only is there a distinguishedleft-wing tradition of attachment to ideas

11 pp. 31-2 in Oakeshott, M. (1989 [1975]). ‘A place of learning’. Reprinted in Michael Oakeshott on Education (ed. T.Fuller). New Haven: Yale University Press.12 p. 97 in Laski, H (1930). ‘Teacher and student’. In The Dangers of Obedience, and Other Essays. New York: Harper andBrothers.13 p.88 in Tawney, R.H. (1964 [1953]). ‘The Workers’ Educational Association and adult education’. Reprinted in TheRadical Tradition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.14 p. 145 in Lindsay, A.D. (1957 [1950]). ‘Philosophy as a Criticism of Standards’. Paper read to The Scots PhilosophicalClub, September 1950. Reprinted in A.D. Lindsay, Selected Addresses (privately published).15 p. 370 in Scott, D. (1971). A.D. Lindsay. Oxford: Blackwell.

very similar to Mr Gove’s; there is also aright-wing distrust of them, a philistinism insome segments of Conservative thoughtthat presumably makes Mr Gove shiver inprivate. If Margaret Thatcher and her maineducational adviser Keith Joseph presidedover what the left could admire asvocational learner-centredness, they alsoimposed what Professor Anthony O’Hearcalled at the time an educationalutilitarianism that is inimical to soundlearning of any kind: ‘the educationaltheorists and politicians who want to bringabout a respect for “wealth creation” andto make education “relevant” to “the needsof industry”’ were in effect imposing thequite anti-educational ‘belief in theoverweening importance of the presentmoment and the stimulations anddemands of the present.’16

Curriculum for Excellence, just like theseThatcherite forebears, ignores tradition, orat best takes it for granted: it has nothingworthwhile to say about why tradition isimportant, of why we might want childrento learn where they have come from, ofhow the multiple currents of cultural ideasthat we inherit are what shape anycapacity we have be innovative. TheCurriculum for Excellence does touch onsuch matters, but always cursorily becauseits focus is always on the learner, never onwhat has to be learnt. Curricular changeought always to be accompanied by acultural debate, a discussion of whatmatters from the past. That has nothappened in Scotland.

Although Michael Gove has paid scantattention to how students might beencouraged to engage with the culturallegacy, his thinking and practice have

directed our attention to the necessity ofpaying attention to it. In that sense, he is amore truly and thoughtfully conservative apolitician than any education minister inthe governments of the 1980s and 1990s.He is also thoroughly Scottish in hissources, as Scottish in a cultural sense ashis worthy rival, the SNP’s Michael Russellwho became Scottish Education Secretaryafter 2009. The two men might agreeabout much, not only about Scottishculture but also about the much greatereducational traditions to which thedemocratic intellect is heir. If a choice hadto be made, then preserving the best thathas been thought and said – Mr Gove’spublic preference – is the more compellingof the two philosophies that have beenoutlined here, since, if we forget that, thenwe have nothing left.

But the choice need not be so stark.Indeed, the very existence of the contrastis inimical to thinking creatively about it,something that has never properly beendone since the present phase of massiveexpansion of education started in the1960s. How do we find ways in which thegreat intellectual traditions are, at somelevel, engaged with by most pupils?Scotland started to do that with theStandard Grade reforms of the 1980s – aLabour legacy that was presided over bythe Conservatives and which quickly cameto be accepted by teachers. The philosophyof these courses was to enable all themain domains of knowledge to be madeavailable to a much wider range ofstudents than had ever been able to takepart in such learning previously. That wasthe last time in Scotland when a respectfor inherited structures of knowledge andpractice was deliberately combined in

16 p.104 in O’Hear, A. (1987). The importance of traditional learning’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35, pp. 102-14

policy with an understanding of the diverseneeds of individual learners. Thereafter,the learner – and choice, relevance, andutility – came gradually to dominate.

At a time when Scotland is so concernedwith its traditions, has opted in thereferendum of 2014 to acknowledgepolitically the multiple traditions to which itbelongs, and yet neglects the importanceof tradition in its school curriculum, thereis a strange vacuum at the heart of how wethink about education. How the twodominant trajectories of educational policyare to be reconciled is not at all clear, butif they are ever to be brought together thenthey both have to be expressed with someforce inside Scottish debate. Scotland usedto have many exponents of the kind ofintellectualism to which Mr Gove aspires,many of them from political positions quitedifferent from his. Any party which beganto question, not child-centredness but theuncritical adoption of it in Curriculum forExcellence, might start to shape theScottish educational debate profoundly.Whatever the eventual resolution of theresulting tensions between these twopositions, Scotland would eventually beable to develop, more carefully and self-consciously than it has had for a long time,an understanding of the variety of ways inwhich a society might engage critically withthe many traditions that have formed it.

Two cheers for Curriculum for Excellence

If Scotland is to become again a countrywith a genuinely cutting-edge educationsystem that is perceived as world leading,the complacency and the self-congratulation must go, says KeirBloomer, who is an independent educationconsultant. He was Director of Educationand later Chief Executive ofClackmannanshire Council. As a memberof the review group which wrote “ACurriculum for Excellence” (Scotland’snational curriculum), he has been closelyinvolved with curriculum reform.

IntroductionScotland has long been proud of itseducation system. Indeed, education,along with the law and the church, wasgreatly prized after the Act of Unionbecause it retained its distinctively Scottishcharacter. Of the three, it is nowunquestionably the one with the greatestimpact on Scottish society.

Furthermore, Scottish pride has been well-founded. The fact that many people wereable to sign their own names, rather thanmerely, make marks on the seventeenthcentury Covenants shows that the ability towrite was widespread. By the end of theeighteenth century, Scotland seems tohave been the most literate society inEurope. The Enlightenment and theindustrial revolution were, in large part, theresult of the quality of education offered byScotland’s schools and universities.

Scotland’s universities remain world class.Collectively, their contribution to theScottish economy is huge and theirinfluence is global. Three – Edinburgh,

Glasgow and St. Andrews – are placed inthe top hundred universities of the world.

This article, however, is concerned withschool education. In this case, the pictureis more mixed. Two indicators of qualitycall for more detailed consideration. Howdoes the performance of Scotland’sschools compare with that of othercountries? How successful has Scotlandbeen in improving the prospects of youngpeople coming from disadvantagedfamilies and communities? There are, ofcourse, other aspects of the system thatmight profitably be examined but, in anincreasingly globalised and competitiveworld, these two will largely determine howsuccessful Scotland will be over thecoming decades.

How good are Scotland’s schoolsAt the time of the National Debate onEducation in 2002, thousands of parents,teachers and others addressed thesequestions and the conclusions theyreached were optimistic. Scotland’sschools, they said were doing a good job.The great majority of young people werereceiving a good education and being wellprepared for later life. There were reasonswhy schools should change but they had todo with changes in the world rather thanfailures in the system.

Twelve years on, there seems little reasonto change that impressionistic judgment.Looked at in isolation, Scotland’s schoolscontinue to provide a good service. Thegreat majority of young people emerge wellprepared and qualified for later life.Standards are high and vary surprisingly

little. Scotland’s teaching profession isboth good and improving. However, it is now more possible – andmore necessary - to see how Scottisheducation compares with what is on offerelsewhere.

International rankings of schoolperformance are a relatively new ventureand methodologies are still the subject ofconsiderable dispute. There is obviousscope to question whether they measurethe aspects of young people’s learning thatwill prove most important in determiningsuccess as the twenty-first century unfolds.

Nevertheless, they have quickly becomevery influential. Across the world,governments are convinced that higheducational performance is a crucialdeterminant of economic progress and, toperhaps a slightly lesser extent, of a stableand contented society. The outcomes ofthe main international surveys, especiallyof the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA), are eagerly awaited.Poor PISA scores can throw an educationsystem into crisis. In many countries,raising PISA performance has become akey objective, influencing – perhapsdistorting – what goes on in classrooms.

Apart from PISA there are two other highly-regarded studies; the Progress inInternational Reading Literacy Study(PIRLS) and the Trends in InternationalMathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS).Scotland has now withdrawn from thesetwo, thus reducing the amount of evidenceavailable to Scottish policy makers and thepublic. It is difficult to avoid the suspicionthat Scotland has chosen to make itselfless accountable by ceasing to take part in

the surveys in which it tended to do lesswell.

By the time of Scotland’s withdrawal fromPIRLS, 19 countries were performingbetter. Most of these were countries withdeveloped economies, in other words,Scotland’s direct competitors. By contrastalmost half of those operating at a similaror lower level were third world countrieswith seriously under-funded schools and noheritage of operating at a level remotelycomparable to Scotland.

If anything, Scotland’s performance inTIMSS was a cause of greater worry. Thefollowing tables show that performance inmaths could be described, at best, asstatic while a decline in science is veryclear.

Mathematics

Science

Of course, these results are now somedistance out of date. For more recentcomparative statistics, only PISA isavailable. It measures the competence offifteen year olds in three areas; reading,mathematics and science. Each time thesurvey is undertaken, one of thesesubjects is examined in greater detail. Thesurvey looks at competence at six levelsranging from simple factual recall to

Year group 1995 2003 2007P5 493 490 494S2 493 498 487

Year group 1995 2003 2007P5 514 502 500S2 501 512 496

complex problem solving. It cannot,therefore, easily be dismissed as ameasure only of routine low level tasks.This last point is of considerableimportance. There is a tendency todismiss the excellent performance of partsof China and other countries of the PacificRim by conjuring up stereotypes of serriedranks of children reciting facts by rote.PISA, however, tests much more than that.

The following table sets out Scotland’sresults in the five surveys so far. Theinternational average is set at 500 points.

In all three areas, Scotland’s performancewas significantly worse in 2012 than it hadbeen in 2000. The best that can be said isthat the rapid decline between 2000 and2006 appears to have been halted. Thereis little sign of recovery.

Yet the Scottish Government hailed PISA2012 as a success. Predictably, much wasmade of Scotland’s supposed lead overEngland. The figures, however, reveal thatthe difference is of little significance.

Neither country has done particularly well– below average in maths, average inreading and rather better in science. Thefollowing table gives an indication of how

the best performers compare:

The fact that Scotland’s performance wasbilled as a success is very significantbecause it demonstrates the tendency toself-congratulation, which is such adamaging aspect of the culture in whichScottish education operates. Thedifference between the public stance ofScottish and English education ministersover the years is instructive. Englishministers are almost always unrelentingand negative critics of the system whiletheir Scottish counterparts are the chiefcheerleaders. Neither of these is a healthystandpoint. Neither assists theirrespective systems to learn from theirexperience.

Another suggestion made by theGovernment was that the results showed anarrowing of the gap between the mostand least successful Scottish students.The evidence for this is slim. Indeed,examination of levels of success atdifferent percentile points over a period oftime suggests otherwise. Taking the lowestand highest performing groups in 2003and 2012, it would appear that, whilethere had been a decline at all levels, itwas greater among the low-performingthan the high-performing in maths andreading. In other words, equity haddeclined. In science, where overall declinehas not been significant since 2003, equityhas increased but only becauseperformance at the highest level has

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Reading 526 516 499 500 506

Maths 533 524 506 499 498

Science522 514 515 514 513

Scotland EnglandReading 506 500Maths 498 495Science 513 516

Shanghai Singapore HongKong

Taiwan SouthKorea

Reading 613 573 561 560 554

Maths 570 542 545 523 536

Science580 551 555 523 538

dropped. Presumably, this is not how‘closing the gap’ is supposed to happen.

This obviously raises the other keymeasure of performance; ensuring thatopportunity is being successfully taken upby all children rather than only those frommore advantaged circumstances.

It has been an objective of virtually everyimportant Scottish educational reform forhalf a century to improve the prospects ofthe disadvantaged. This was the aim ofintroducing comprehensive education inthe mid-1960s and it is one of thepurposes of Curriculum for Excellencetoday. Sincere efforts have been madethroughout this long period both byteachers and by politicians of all parties tomake Scottish education fairer. And theyhave failed.

The proportion of young peopleexperiencing serious educationaldisadvantage has remained approximatelyconstant at about 20%. It could, indeed,be argued that their relative disadvantagehas increased. Society has become morepolarized. Highly qualified people haveseen their earnings steadily increase, bothin real terms and in comparison with thenational average. At the other end of thescale, people have seen the value of theirlow-skilled labour fall. Over the period ofthis century so far, the ‘graduate premium’may have increased by as much as 20% inreal terms while there has been a declineof at least 10% in the pay of the unskilled.

This is, of course, a matter of supply anddemand. There are too few suitablyqualified applicants for jobs requiring thehighest level of skill. The opposite is true

at the other end of the scale. Theeducation system has failed to keep up.Radical improvement would be neededbefore it could match labour marketrequirements. To a large extent, that istrue of every country. Schools are simplynot as effective as they need to be.

There is another sense in which the gaphas widened. The growing complexity ofmany jobs means that the unskilled areeven further from being able to compete.Employers are also concerned aboutattitudes to work in households wherethere has been generations ofworklessness. It is becoming increasinglyclear that ‘excluded’ is unfortunately all tooaccurate a description for many of theyoung people who fail at school.

How important are these shortcomings?Children growing up today will enter anadult world very different from anythingexperienced even in the recent past. Thepace of change is more rapid and is stillaccelerating. The impact of globalisationbecomes ever greater. The opportunitiesand threats of the modern world arewithout precedent.

A country with a developed economy suchas Scotland will prosper in the future only ifa large, and ever-increasing, section of itsworkforce is capable of operatingsomewhere near the cutting edge ofknowledge. A modern economy willsupport many jobs at all levels of skill but itis driven by ideas, innovation and the highadded-value of intellectual property.Without a successful, creative, leading-edge sector, an economy will inevitablyenter relative decline.

The point is well illustrated by the case ofthe iPhone. Most are assembled inShenzhen in southern China fromcomponents made in a host of countries.Of the $560 selling price of the iPhone4 in2011, the assembly accounted for $14and the components for $178. Theremaining $368 was Apple’s slice; thevalue of the ideas, design, R&D and soforth.

The kinds of skills that are essential in thisglobally competitive world are problemsolving, creativity and systems thinking.They in turn are dependent on other morebasic skills, crucially literacy and numeracy.Furthermore, staying competitive dependson adaptability and skills of continuouslearning through life.

It is now quite unrealistic to expect schoolsto give young people a complete toolkit ofknowledge and know-how to last a lifetime.Rather, the aim must be to equip youngpeople with the attitudes and skills ofadaptable lifelong learners. Schools todaymust be in the business of preparing youngpeople for a future that cannot be foreseenfor more than a few years ahead.Educators have never previously facedsuch a challenge.

Despite growing prosperity, moderneconomies seem to have only a limitedcapacity (or willingness) to carrypassengers. The outlook for the ill-educated, unqualified and unmotivated isbleak indeed.

It is probably fair to say that internationalcompetition in standards of education hasbeen driven primarily by this kind ofeconomic consideration. However, there

are at least two other vital concerns thatmust be borne in mind.

Firstly, the history of the modern eramakes clear that economic failure isalmost always followed by social collapse.Social harmony is closely bound up withcontinuing prosperity. Economic success isperhaps not the most important objectivebut it is a prerequisite of achieving otherless material aims.

Secondly, as human society faces themassive challenges of the contemporaryworld, especially achieving a sustainablefuture, it becomes increasingly clear thatdeveloping an enlightened culture of publicopinion is of huge importance. Manypeople are alienated from politics becausethey believe that contemporary democracyaffords them little, if any, influence onsociety. It is, of course, true that theindividual’s voice or vote has negligibleimpact. However, the condition of publicopinion is another matter. An ill-informedand unthinking public makes it moreprofitable for politicians to appeal toignorance and prejudice; an educatedpublic has the opposite effect.

Whether judged from an economic or amore altruistic viewpoint, it is clear thathaving good schools is no longer enough.There is a need for education systems inthe future to be far more effective thanthey have been up to now. Standards needto rise across the board and particulareffort has to be devoted to trying to ensurethat the gap between the disadvantagedand other learners narrows at the sametime. Unless these conditions are met,serious economic and social problems willalmost certainly follow.

Scotland’s big ideaThe previous section implied a set ofobjectives. Young people need to behelped to be “successful learners”,“confident individuals”, “effectivecontributors” and “responsible citizens”.This is, of course, what Curriculum forExcellence seeks to achieve.

There is nothing uniquely Scottish aboutthis vision. Over the past decade manygovernments have been reconsidering thepurposes of education and have adoptedmission statements setting out very similarobjectives, often in similar words.UNESCO’s commission on education,chaired by Jacques Delors, attempting todevise a global mission for schooleducation talked about “learning to do”,“learning to be”, “learning to learn” and“learning to live with others”. It would bedifficult to identify any important differencebetween this and the objectives ofCurriculum for Excellence. In other words,Scottish thinking is firmly placed in theglobal mainstream.

Furthermore, the programme that hasemerged is notably ambitious andcomprehensive. It contains many strandsof which the following are, perhaps, themost important.

1. There is a commitment to a long-termprogramme of iterative change in whichsuccessive innovations bring thesystem gradually closer to its fourobjectives.

2. Success is to be seen in terms ofoutcomes – what young people learn todo and be – rather than in terms ofinputs.

3. Cultivating skills – especially advancedcognitive skills – is seen as essential.

4. Knowledge remains vital but is not initself sufficient. Teachers need to helpyoung people become active learners,making sense of what they encounter,not merely remembering it.

5. To achieve this, learners have to bemuch more positively engaged withtheir learning. Intrinsic motivation isimportant.

6. Learning in school is important but sotoo is what is learned elsewhere.Schools need to value widerachievement.

7. Young people need to become familiarwith the main disciplines such asmaths or science or history but theyalso need to understand theconnections among them. Thecurriculum should balance disciplinaryand interdisciplinary learning.

8. Education should become increasinglypersonalised or suited to the needs ofthe individual.

9. Learning needs to be coherent andcontinuous. Points of transition, forinstance from primary to secondaryschool, should be as smooth aspossible.

10.Greater flexibility is needed, especiallyin the later years of school educationwhere alternative pathways to differentkinds of destination should beavailable. Vocational education has animportant part to play.

This is a highly enlightened programme. Ithas the capacity to create the kind ofeducation that would compare with thebest in the world. However, having goodideas is not necessarily the same asrealising them successfully.

How are we doing?Curriculum for Excellence is approachingits tenth birthday: the original documentwas published in November 2004. Itwould be reasonable to expect substantialprogress across that timescale.

And, in some respects, significant progresshas taken place. The Experiences andOutcomes have sought to define thecurriculum in terms of outcomes and haveinfluenced teachers’ planning andclassroom practice. However, manyteachers have experienced real problemsin interpreting them and the formula worksbetter in some curricular areas thanothers. Revision is certainly required butthe approach has much to commend it.

Teachers have taken on the notion ofactive learning but more requires to bedone. This concept, which is the centralprinciple of Curriculum for Excellence,perhaps warrants more attention than ishas received. Nevertheless, there is ageneral awareness that developingunderstanding and the capacity to applyknowledge are vitally important.

Schools value what young people learnelsewhere more than they ever did before.Achievement is being recognised inincreasingly diverse ways.

Learner engagement is a success story ofCurriculum for Excellence. Almosteverywhere teachers are seeking to helpyoung people take increasing responsibilityfor their own learning.

Much more could be said that is positive.Good practice could be found in relation toevery item on the earlier list. However,

there are also serious problems andshortcomings.

At a very basic level, there is insufficientunderstanding of the essence ofCurriculum for Excellence. Parents,employers and learners themselves lack aclear grasp of what it is, why it is necessaryor how it will make things different. Eventeachers, if asked to define it, wouldproduce a myriad of answers, noneperhaps wrong but showing a bewilderingvariety. The big ideas have simply notbeen communicated.

The all-important idea of iterative change isbeing lost and, with it, the notion of anagreed long-term sense of direction.Instead, the familiar concept ofimplementation is taking over. At any ratein the secondary sector, examinationchanges have become all-important.Immense effort is being put in to relativelyminor changes while teachers entertainthe expectation that the pace will slackenonce the new examinations are in place.By opting for examination reform,government ensured that attention wouldbe almost wholly diverted from the lowersecondary where the need for change wasgreater and more urgent.

In relation to skills and interdisciplinarylearning the programme has lackedambition. The main guidance on theformer is contained in the weakest of theBuilding the Curriculum series while highlevel guidance on the latter is conspicuousby its absence.

This mixture of achievement and missedopportunity is typical of educational reformin Scotland. A scorecard on Standard

Grade or 5-14 or earlier structural changessuch as comprehensive reorganisation orraising the school leaving age would reveala similar balance and the same ultimateoutcome; reform falling well short ofexpectations and promise.

Scotland does not lack good ideas but itlacks the capacity to capitalize on them.

What is to be done?Scotland needs to look seriously at how itbrings about educational change.Experience has repeatedly shown thathaving worthwhile ideas is not enough.Developing a policy does not guaranteethat change will take place.

The single most important factor inachieving change is winning commitmentand support for it. Public opinion isimportant and parental opinion even moreso. However, the key constituency isteachers. Teachers need to believe thatthe proposed change is necessary andlikely to achieve its objectives. They aremore likely to believe if they are convincedit will address difficulties they are actuallyexperiencing. Poorly explained proposalsthat are externally imposed will neverachieve much.

In one respect this lesson has beenlearned. It is understood that teachers’professional development of hugeimportance. Resources in this area havenot been cut during the current financialdifficulties in the way that would havehappened in the past. It is time to takethis appreciation of the need to invest inbuilding capacity into the field of policydevelopment and implementation.

There needs also to be a clearunderstanding of the difference betweenhigh-level strategy and other areas ofdecision making. It is legitimate forgovernment to set a clear sense ofdirection, as was done by the originalCurriculum for Excellence paper in 2004.

One of the aims set out in that paper wasto empower schools and teachers, thusreleasing their creative energies. Inretrospect, it is clear that not enough wasdone to spell out what that would mean orat what level particular decisions could bemade. Neither was attention given tobuilding the professional self-confidenceneeded in a more decentralised system.The results have been confusion, reversionto a belief that all important decisions aretaken at the centre and a growing demandfrom teachers to be told what to do.

The guiding principle should besubsidiarity, the concept that decisions arebest taken at the lowest level consistentwith effectiveness. In other words, in theabsence of legislation or regulation, thedefault assumption should be that theschool has the right to decide.

Recent years have seen a decrease in theresources available to local government.Most councils have tried to protectspending at school level, preferring tomake cuts in central support services.While this is in many ways verycommendable, it means that, in manyareas, councils lack the means to helpschools. It is becoming increasinglydifficult to see what they add to theprocess of educational management.

It is interesting that CoSLA, probably in

anticipation of local government reformbecoming an issue in the 2016 ScottishParliament elections, decided to establisha commission to look at the future ofScotland’s councils. In a lucid andpotentially radical report, the commissionargued that the central role of localgovernment is promoting democracy,especially at grassroots level. The reportargues that Scotland is one of the mostcentralised countries in the developedworld and that the need is for more (and,therefore, more local) councils. This is, ofcourse, quite contrary to the prevailing, butill-founded, wisdom that education wouldbest be managed through 10 or so regionalauthorities.

The decision on the future of localgovernment should be made on the basisof what best serves democracy in anincreasingly devolved Scotland. However,the question of how schools are bestmanaged and supported is important tooand it is quite possible that the bestapproach to local government reformwould require schools to be managed insome other way.

This, however, is not inevitable. It is quitepossible to see how even quite small localcouncils could have a role in helpingschools to network and assist each other,to collaborate with other services and tomeet community needs. This would be avery different role from the current role ofcouncils (that they are decreasingly able tofulfil) but it could be a valid one.

At the heart of this discussion is thequestion of accountability. Here there is aparadox. Teachers and schools havepowerful feelings of responsibility to young

people, their families and, to perhaps alesser extent, their communities. However,they are not formally accountable to any ofthese. Schools’ accountability is to localand national politicians through localeducation directorates, HMI and otherbodies. Many teachers, however, have nostrong feelings of responsibility to them.Whatever the future structure of localgovernment and the nature of itsinvolvement in education, it is importantthat lines of accountability and feelings ofresponsibility are brought into closeralignment.

This clearly requires a strengthening ofgovernance arrangements at a very locallevel. Scotland does not have a traditionof effective governing bodies except in theindependent sector. However, such bodiesare a potential source of strength and auseful counterweight in a system in whichthe power of central government isincreasing as that of local governmentdeclines.

Another, and totally compatible, way inwhich this very local tier of governancecould be strengthened is by seeing thecluster, rather than the individual school,as the key unit in the organisation of thesystem. Such a development is alreadyunder way. Most local authorities aretrying to promote more collaboration atcluster level in order to achieve bettercurricular continuity, better transitions andmore effective support for pupils withdifficulties as they progress from one levelto the next. In more rural areas, it isbecoming increasingly common for a singleheadteacher to take charge of more thanone school. The logical endpoint of thesedevelopments is to see the group of pre-

five, primary, secondary (and possibly ASN)establishments as a single 3 to 18institution under unified management andgovernance.

An added advantage would be that,instead of requiring well over 2500 schoolleaders, less than 400 would be needed.The demand for exceptional leaders wouldbecome more realistic. The managementcapacity of the cluster would be muchmore powerful than that of the individualschool, especially that of small pre-fiveestablishments and primary schools. Werethe idea of setting up an effective local tierof governance to be adopted, it would alsobe easier to ensure the availability ofcommitted and capable lay members,especially in areas of deprivation wherethese might be difficult to recruit in thenumbers required if the school, rather thanthe cluster, were to be the unit.

Apart from reforming its management andgovernance arrangements, Scotlandrequires to be more confident andinnovative. It is ironic that innovation atschool level appears to be morewidespread in England where theinhibitions imposed by statute andregulation are much greater. A quarter of acentury of consistent transfer ofoperational management decision-makingto school level has clearly played a part. Itis now vital that Scotland translates theempowering rhetoric of Curriculum forExcellence into practice. This isparticularly important in relation to aspectsof the programme, such as promoting skillsand developing interdisciplinary learning,where action so far has been too tentative.

There is, however, a further step that

requires to be taken; one that depends oncentral government adopting a new andproactive role.

The principal role of central government inrelation to schools, apart from being themain source of finance, is strategicdirection. This should not imply micro-management or, indeed, involvement at allat an operational level. In principle,guidance at the high level of generality ofthe Building the Curriculum series isappropriate (although the planning of theseries and the quality of individual papershave important shortcomings).

To this needs to be added a moreambitious and future-oriented role.Globally, education has been slow tochange. Even in the best systems, what isbeing achieved falls far short of what iseither possible or necessary. Educationhas lagged in exploiting the possibilities ofnew technology and exploring theimplications of expanding knowledge of thelearning process. It seems inconceivablethat, were universal education in childhoodand adolescence to be developed today forthe first time, anything resembling theschool - especially the secondary school -would be seen as the appropriate wayforward.

Everywhere governments know that muchof the organisation and practices ofschools are seriously obsolescent but theyhave had little success in breaking out ofthe constraints of what remains in manyways a nineteenth century institutionalstructure. Within the context of a publiceducation system – at any rate, ascurrently understood - only government hasthe capacity to seed and fund far-reaching

innovation. Over the years, this kind oflong-term and radical change has not beena strength of government. If schooleducation is to meet the needs of thetwenty-first century, in Scotland orelsewhere, it needs to become so.

Finally, if Scotland is to become again acountry with a genuinely cutting-edgeeducation system that is perceived asworld leading, the complacency and theself-congratulation must go. Scottisheducation has many strengths - fineteachers, forward-looking policies - but itneeds to be constructively self critical. Itneeds, in short, to shed the defensivenessand become a learning system.

FOLLOW THE CHILD

It is time for parents to be able to choose the nursery that suits them best, rather thanhave their choice restricted by the council, writes Alison Payne, Research Director,Reform Scotland

Pre-school provision is an important issue which can too often be sidelined as a“women’s issue”, as if somehow it is only of concern to mums, not dads.

Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of nursery education in helping thedevelopment of youngsters, but wider childcare issues are also important for parents andthe country as a whole, not just in terms of helping people re-enter, or maintain, aposition in the work-place; but a lack of affordable childcare can deter some people fromhaving additional, or indeed any, children. Considering Scotland’s ageing population, thiscould have consequences for the economy and for public services in years to come.

The Scottish Government has recognised the importance of childcare and made anumber of pledges, if Scotland becomes independent, to radically increase the amount ofgovernment-funded nursery and child-care provision available by the end of anindependent Scotland’s first parliament. Although the commitment no longer standsbecause Scotland voted ‘No’ on September 18th, childcare and education are devolvedareas of competence and, therefore, Scotland can still look to improve and simplify theexisting system. (As an aside, I believe the Scottish Parliament should be responsible forraising what it spends, which would allow for greater discussion and debate over taxraising and spending priorities, as opposed to just focusing on spending.)

BackgroundAlthough there had been historical provision for some three and four year olds to attendnursery in Scotland, provision varied from area to area. As a result, politicians at aScotland-wide level tried to improve access for all which led to a few big policy ideaswhich have had a major impact on the debate on how nurseries are provided in Scotland– arguably, the main areas are old-style nursery vouchers and The Standards inScotland’s Schools Etc Act 2000 (which placed a legal duty on local authorities to offernursery provision and enabled them to use external providers to meet demand).

In 1995, the then Conservative Government proposed the introduction of a nurseryvoucher scheme with the intention of ensuring that all four year olds were able to accessa year of nursery provision. Parents would receive a physical voucher for £1,100 a yearwhich they could use to purchase nursery education. The voucher could be used to buyservices from their local authority or from the private or third sector. Pilot schemes wereundertaken in 1996/7 in parts of North Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Argyll & Bute andHighland local authority areas.1 Critics of the scheme complained of the bureaucracy of

1 Local Government Chronicle, “£3m Scots Nursery Vouchers Pilot Scheme Announced”, 4/3/1996

the system and, following the 1997/8 school session, the new Labour Governmentscrapped the vouchers.2 A study was carried out by Stirling University into the schemeand Sally Brown, Stirling's then deputy principal, told the TES:

"Parents are largely indifferent to the vouchers and some think they are an extrabureaucratic task. They are delighted with the provision that is free, provides them withguaranteed places and in some areas provides them with some choice."

This suggested that the idea of increased provision and some element of choice werepopular, though the method by which it was delivered was seen as bureaucratic.

However, it was not until the enactment of The Standards in Scotland’s Schools Etc Act2000 that a duty was placed on local authorities to provide pre-school education to allthree and four-year olds and set a minimum entitlement of the number of hours of pre-school education per year a child should be able to receive, if their parents wanted it.Section 35 of the Act also gave authorities express power to secure provision throughsuppliers other than themselves. It is up to each local authority who it commissions carefrom and, therefore, not all privately-run nurseries will necessarily be partnershipproviders. The ease of gaining partnership status will vary from council to council withsome local authorities granting partnership status to a nursery, while others will only funda certain number of places at a partnership nursery.

While the operation of the system varies from council to council, in many ways in someareas the Act re-introduced the nursery voucher scheme and choice of provision that theConservatives tried to implement in the nineties, but adapted it for the 21st Century. Forexample, depending on where they live, some parents using a partnership nursery moreor less get a virtual voucher with a discount applied to their bill to take account of thecost of providing the 600 hours in their area.

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 also increased the entitlement sothat currently all three and four-year olds are now entitled to 600 hours of government-funded nursery provision as well as vulnerable two–year olds.

ProblemsDespite the growth in nursery provision, there remain some variations in the ability ofparents to secure government-funded nursery provision for their children.

Birthday discrimination:Unlike school provision where all children start together in the autumn term normally inthe calendar year they turn five, with nursery provision the entitlement only begins in theterm after a child’s third birthday. As a result, children born before the start of theautumn term will be able to receive two years of nursery education, but those born afterthis point will receive less. Children who are born in January and February and plan to

2 Hansard, 17/6/1997

start school when they are four and a half may end up only receiving a year of nurseryeducation. This can result in a year’s difference in nursery provision based purely onwhen a child’s birthday falls and is illustrated in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Birthday discrimination in entitlement to government-funded nurseryprovision

Table 1 illustrates that only 50 per cent of children are guaranteed the legal entitlementto two full years of government-funded nursery provision. 7

Scottish Conservative MSP Elizabeth Smith put down amendments to correct thisanomaly during the passing of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, which wouldhave ensured that all children were entitled to a basic 2 years of government-fundednursery provision. The amendments were supported by Labour and the LiberalDemocrats, but were unfortunately voted down by the SNP.

The Scottish Government suggested8 that the current system takes “proper account” ofa child’s development. However, the current practice of using the term after a child turnsthree is simply an arbitrary point in the year, as it takes no account of a child’sdevelopment and no qualifications, such as a child being fully toilet trained, must be met.In addition, there is a wide variation in the age that a child’s entitlement begins - a childborn at the end of August starts nursery when they are 2 years 11 months, while a childborn in early March starts nursery when they are 3 years 5 months. Reform Scotlandwants one arbitrary point in time replaced by another, but our point will see all children

Child’s birthday Entitlement togovernmentfunded nurseryprovision begins

Total nurseryentitlementbefore beginningschool

Approximateentitlement inhours, based on600 hours peryear 3

Approximatefinancialentitlement forpartnershipprovision under600 hours 4

Number andpercentage ofbirths registeredin 2012- provision startsin 2015 5

Number andpercentage ofbirths registeredin 2011- provision startsin 2014 6

1 Mar to 31Aug

August/Autumn Term

2 years 1,200 hours £4,200 28,98050.0%

29,37450.1%

1 Sept to 31Dec

January/Spring Term

18 months 1,000 hours £3,500 18,62732.2%

18,56031.7%

1 Jan to 28 Feb(Assuming childstarts school at 4)

April/Summer Term

15 months 800 hours £2,820 10,30017.8%

10,65818.2%

3 We have approximated the hours based on each of the three terms being equal, therefore 200 hours per term.4 Edinburgh Council has yet to update its funding leaflet (http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/8809/pre-school_funding_leaflet ) that Reform Scotland used under the 475 hours regime, therefore I have based this on roughly£2,100 per year I receive as an Edinburgh parent. This would give costs of £3.50 per hour/£700 per term.5 Taken from the weekly birth registrations from the National Records of Scotland http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/general/weekly-monthly-births-death-data/weekly/index.html 6 Taken from the weekly birth registrations from the National Records of Scotland http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/general/weekly-monthly-births-death-data/weekly/index.html7 According to the Growing up in Scotland research, Early Experiences of Primary School, published in 2012, just under 50per cent of children born in January or February deferred entry for starting school in 2009. If the deferral rate remained thesame, only 59 per cent of children born in 2011 and 2012 would in practice receive the full two years, or 1,200 hoursprovision. 8 Scotsman, 7/1/14 - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-tories-bid-to-change-unfair-nursery-care-1-3258423

treated equally and, more importantly, all children will be entitled to the same basic 2years of government-funded nursery provision.

Public/private:There is a more fundamental problem, a problem that seems to be growing, and that isthe attitude in certain areas to the use of the private sector in delivering government-funded nursery provision.

Partnership nurseries are private sector businesses which are paid to provide a publicservice. In this case, local authorities pay the partnership nurseries to deliverygovernment-funded nursery entitlement. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding bysome politicians that this means that parents are actively choosing private sectorprovision over the public sector and, arguably, as a result councils such as Glasgow, EastDunbartonshire and East Lothian have restricted the number of places that they will fundin partnership nurseries. Councils have suggested that parents can move their child toan alternative nursery either a council-run one or a different partnership one, as if thechild was an object that could be taken out of one environment that they were secureand happy in and placed in another without consequence every time the council changedits mind about which nurseries they would give partnership places to.

However, this attitude also ignores the fact that in reality the public and private sector areoffering very different provision. The majority of state nurseries, though this will varyfrom council to council, offer around 3 hours a day, for 5 days a week during the schoolyear – which makes up the 600 hours funded by the Scottish Government. Somecouncils may allow hours to be bundled so that more than one session is taken in oneday, others will not. Some may allow only part of a provision to be taken up, others willnot. And these policies may change over time. There are no catchment areas forcouncil nurseries, including nurseries attached to schools, so there is no guarantee of aplace in a nursery at a convenient location (especially important if parents are alsoorganising the drop-off and pick-up of other children at school or nursery.)

Therefore, for many working parents it is almost impossible to take up a place at acouncil nursery under those circumstances, unless you have some sort of wrap-aroundsystem in place through family, friends, or another nursery.

Councils are supposed to consult with parents and try to be more flexible. However, Ihave been present at meetings where this discussion veers towards a situation whichsuggests there is a potential conflict between a child’s best interest and their parents’interest when it comes to childcare. Of course, it is vital that the childcare being providedshould be of a high standard and provides an environment within which a child feelshappy and secure. However, there is danger of pitching interests against each whichcould lead to the suggestion that a parent, normally a mother, should not work because itis not in the interests of her child to be in childcare for too long. After all you cannot have

more women working without more children using childcare, and using childcare for morethan the 3 hours 10 minutes-a-day government provision. I also find it insulting tosuggest that parents wouldn’t try their best to ensure their child’s best interests weremet. Surely they are the best judge of their own child’s interest, as opposed to anypoliticians or committee trying to second guess them?

At this juncture I should also declare a personal interest in this subject. I am a part-timeworking mum. Both my children began attending a partnership nursery in Edinburghwhen they were about 10 months old, attending three days a week. Having children wasmy choice, as was returning to work. When my children turned 3, I was unable to take aposition for either of my children at a local authority nursery. This was not a choice toavoid the public sector – my son has started at a state primary and my daughter willfollow him there next year – it was simply a matter of practicality. If I wanted to carry onworking, I would need to use a partnership nursery. However, thankfully because of theway the system works in Edinburgh, I received a virtual voucher towards the cost of mychildren’s nursery provision via a monthly discount on my fees.

I don’t regret sending my children to nursery and nor am I ashamed of it. I think this wasthe best decision for me and my family and I would argue with anyone who tried to tellme having my children attend the nursery they do, for the length of time they do was notin their interest. In saying that, I also acknowledge that this is also largely down to theexcellent care they receive and it is important that, as a society, we place greater valueon childcare workers. I have also been particularly fortunate in that my choice of nurseryhas responded to parental demand and extended its wrap-around cover to include thestate school my son started in August. This means that I know that during the holidayand outside school hours, my son is in a secure environment he loves.

Nursery vouchersI don’t claim to have all the answers regarding childcare, but I strongly believe that weneed to embrace the partnership sector, which includes private and third sectornurseries. Local authority provision is simply inadequate to allow parents to work orstudy as well as ensuring their children receive nursery education. And once a childstarts school, it is often the case that breakfast and after school clubs offered by someschools don’t have enough places for all the children at the school. Local authoritynurseries generally don’t have the capacity to cater for school children out of school, butthe partnership sector does.

Since we published our report in January 2013, a number of parents have contacted us,outlining really difficult situations they have faced trying to juggle working and accessingcouncil nurseries. Too often I have heard stories from mothers, for it has normally beenmothers who have contacted us, who have had to use private nurseries in order to carryon working, but being criticised for doing so with the inference that they must be well offto afford it and therefore shouldn’t receive government funding – ignoring the plain truth

that they have no alternative. Indeed, some people who got in touch told us how theirchildren received no government-provision, because they could not access the provisionthe local authority made available, either due to location or hours offered, so they had noalternative but to use a private nursery and pay the full price themselves.

Reform Scotland believes that as long as a nursery meets necessary standards set byboth Education Scotland, which is responsible for inspection of the education side of thenursery, and the Care Inspectorate, which is responsible for inspection of the care side,parents should be able to take up their entitlement with that provider. This will offer fargreater flexibility as parents can then access their child’s entitlement in a way whichbetter complements their family life. This would mean that a virtual nursery voucherscheme would be in place, where the funding follows the child and parents are able tochoose the nursery which suits them best, rather than have their choice restricted by thecouncil.

It is our hope that a premium could be added to the nursery entitlement scheme to helpchildren from more disadvantaged backgrounds or those with special needs.

What Reform Scotland is calling for is not new, and works to a lesser or greater degreeacross Scotland at present, but is fully dependent on the attitude of the different localauthorities.

Whilst I believe in greater decentralisation and greater local decision making, if a policy,such as nursery education for three and four year olds, is set centrally, as it currently is,then it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure that the policy is actuallydelivered. It is unfair on both parents and children for the Scottish Government to set apolicy, but allow local authorities to restrict the ability of parents to access that vitalprovision. It is not an excuse to argue that you have provided enough places in localauthority nurseries, if parents are unable to access those places because the hours orlocation on offer make it impossible to access. All political parties argue they want tohelp get people into employment, training or education, so policies in other areas, suchas nursery provision, need to reflect that and I believe that nursery vouchers would be astep in the right direction.

HARD KNOCKS

Sophie Sandor’s school bottomed theleague tables, she writes. Too many of herformer class mates are being left behindby an education system that fails toomany. Sophie is currently studying law atEdinburgh University.

Education is the vehicle to creating the lifeyou imagine no matter where you havestarted; the inception of ideas, ambitionand freedom. But what if you attend one ofthe poorest performing schools inScotland? Well, you may find the institutionin which you spend most of your childhoodstifles this potential.

Scotland’s self-regarding claim to be one ofthe most highly-educated countries inEurope with a world-class educationsystem and rising exam performance isblinding us to the discrepancies in qualityof education being received in stateschools across the country. Mostworryingly, neglected educationalinstitutions are not being rigorouslybrought to book. So the disadvantaged areever less likely to reach the influentialpositions.

Neighbouring schools are performing tolevels at opposite ends of the attainmentspectrum. According to figures produced byEducation Scotland, 1% of Glasgow’sDrumchapel High School fifth year pupilsachieved five or more Highers in 2013while 24% achieved the same in the close-by Hyndland Secondary School. Far from aunique example in the city, hundreds ofparallels can be drawn throughoutScotland with the greatest gaps being in

Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow.Attainment differences of at least 50% alsoexist in Dumfries and Galloway, Highland,Renfrewshire and Stirling.

Rankings rarely shift. My school stillbottomed the league tables and bared anegative reputation when I left. At 11%below the national average, less than 4%had prospects of a good university place.

It points to a dangerous lack ofcompetition. And it leads to the unhelpfulstigma of being regarded as one of the‘worst schools’.

In a public statement by the HarvardUniversity professor from Ayrshire – NiallFerguson – our school was singled out. Hedeclared he would not be where he wastoday had he attended Ayr Academy. Thisrepresents a saddening truth. Youngpeople’s chances to rise from the bottomthrough merit cannot be realised whenwhen the state school you attend remainsa major determinant factor in where youare headed.

Professor Ferguson went on to suggest thatmore scholarships and bursaries to privateschools should be implemented while stateschools are unsatisfactory. Althoughprivate schools set an example that, with ademand for quality, a school can becomenothing short of amazing, there areexceptional state schools outperformingprivate schools in many areas. His has notbeen the first, nor will it be the last, ofoutside interventions in an attempt tohighlight the problem with Scottish stateschools.

Mine was a positive experience. AyrAcademy taught me resilience and tenacityfor I soon learned I would have to seek out,grasp and hold tightly onto everyopportunity in order to succeed. I leftbelieving anything is possible, that mindsetis everything and that so long as youpossess a quality education, there is nothingthat can stop you. However, as I know, toomany are being left behind by an educationsystem that is failing a generation.

The correlation between performance andsocio-economic status – highlighted byindicators like low attainment cominghand-in-hand with a high number of pupilson free school meals – has been used as ascapegoat to conclude that poverty resultsin a poor education. Wrong. A pooreducation results in poverty.

This has been proven. Despite economicbackground having an evident effect oneducational outcomes, a report releasedearlier this year by the AccountsCommission concluded: “[S]ome schoolshave achieved better attainment resultsthan their levels of deprivation wouldindicate, suggesting that the gap betweenthe lowest and highest performing schoolscannot be wholly attributed to differentlevels of deprivation.”

If, like me and children I grew up with, youfall within the lowest income bracketentitling you to a childhood of free schoollunches, your ability to learn for the six andhalf hours a day you spend at school is notdiminished. Nor is your potential. Quitesimply, it means greater investment in theeducational experience is requiredbecause paying for private tuition andextra-curricular experiences are either

unaffordable or not a priority; often anumber of contributing factors result inless educational advancement at home;and, imperatively, education is yourgreatest chance of alleviating yourself.

I was fortunate to find inspiration in myteachers at secondary school. Of particularinfluence was the leading lady of ModernStudies who opened my eyes to politicalactivism. Not long after I started, sheencouraged my first action of many at theschool: a petition for our 1st yearWestminster school trip to be put back onafter its disappointing cancellation due toan absence of funding. This was not anunfamiliar story for us.

An underfunded school has so many morereal consequences than the sacrifice of theodd school trip. A lot of the time we did nothave enough textbooks, jotters, stationary,musical instruments, sports equipment –you name it. We even ran out of teachers.Teaching is an admirable challenge as it is.But when you cannot make it through theday with ease; when lesson plans have tobe changed, classes delayed in search ofessential learning tools and there areinsufficient facilities to deal with disruptivepupils and pupils who wish to be furtherchallenged – learning is affected andpeople are held back.

A 5% reduction in councils’ spending oneducation when comparing the years of2010/11 to 2012/13 was highlighted inthe aforementioned Accounts Commissionreport. This is a result of the ScottishGovernment’s 8% cut to councils’ GeneralResource Grant which councils mainlydealt with by reducing numbers of teachersemployed.

Education became solely Scotland’sresponsibility in 1999 – the year I startedschool. Fifteen disappointing years ofdevolved education have now passed.Among other free things, a prominentlyproud moment for the Scottish NationalParty – in power since 2007 – has been theremoval of university tuition fees for everyundergraduate student in Scotland. Given itbenefits only those who are making it touniversity anyway, concerns have alreadybeen expressed that it does nothing toameliorate the attainment gap or widenaccess to higher education in Scotland.

Edinburgh academics last year highlightedthe little difference, if any, between Scotlandand England’s university applicant numberspost and pre devolution. Despite the starkcontrast of Scotland’s non-existent tuitionfees since 2008 with England’s increase toa yearly £9,000 cap, the numbers of thoseapplying to university from the most-deprived quintile in society have beenunchanged overall between 2001 and2011. There was even a drop in Scotlandfrom 8% down to 7% of the applications toour ancient universities being made up bythe poorest fifth.

In an attempt to pass the buck touniversities, another shamefullyunambitious idea has been easing graderequirements for disadvantaged studentsto tamper with the outcome of oureducation system. Not least does it ignorethe core need to improve education but itpermeates an idea that money equates toability. Social-engineering and free-for-allpolicies do not solve underlying problemsbut instead sustain a ‘poverty cycle’ andmanifest the undesired societal attributesthey purport to combat.

A misguided assumption that success wasonly possible for the few who wereconsidering university created a noticeablegap in perceived prospects. Highexpectations and a belief andencouragement in everyone’s ambitionsare extremely important or young peoplecan leave school with a very skewed viewof the world; a world in which the paths topursue are endless and which aredefinitely not limited to being academic.Focussing on those reaching university,and from this deducing the success of aschool, looks past the importance ofliteracy levels, skills and experience toevery child from the very beginning. Theunfairness experienced when applying tohigher education transcends into everysphere of life and the working world.

So the answers lie not in adjustingoutcomes but in what takes place behindthe school doors; in nipping disadvantagein the bud from the very beginning. Thischange of mindset will be crucial becausewe are in a rut while spending on the here-and-now, in the name of politicalpopularity, is prioritised over investment inwhat carries the country on whenpoliticians are long-gone.

Now that the Scottish independencereferendum on the 18th September is overwe must maintain momentum to gearScottish politics towards ambitiouseducational improvements. Nowadays,individuals are truly free, through hardwork, to create the life they envisage forthemselves. Once education is debatedand acted upon as passionately asindependence has been contested for thepast two years the vision can be achieved.

THE REAL ENEMY

Those with low educational attainment arealmost five times as likely to be in poverty.If Scotland cares about ‘social justice’,writes Chris Deerin, isn’t this somethingwe might want to look at?

Chris Deerin is a journalist and columnistfor the Scottish Daily Mail.

It was quite the row, and it lasted most ofthe summer of 1985. In fact, ‘row’ doesn’tdo it justice. It was a siege: weeks ofattritional warfare, underhand tactics andruthless strategy. The Geneva Conventionwas forgotten. Battering rams andtrebuchets were wheeled out; flamingarrows and buckets of boiling pitch raineddown.

It’s no way to talk about your parents, ofcourse, but if I was Stalingrad, they werethe German Sixth Army. I had just finishedmy final day of primary school when theyinformed me that I wouldn’t, as I’d thought,be starting at the local state secondary inStirling after the holidays. Instead, theywere sending me to St Aloysius’ College, afee-paying, Jesuit-run school in Glasgow. Itwould be good for me, they said. Blood-curdling words such as ‘lawyer’ and‘doctor’ were used freely.

I can’t remember how I phrased myresponse, but it was something along thelines of ‘aye, that’ll be right.’ And so beganthe long July of the great Deerin familydispute. They wanted to place me amongthe flower of prosperous Catholic Scotland;I wanted to stay with my pals and playBloody Knuckles. The outcome was neverreally in doubt: I won, through the expert

deployment of ear-splitting tantrums andhuffs so large they were visible from themoon. Serves me well to this day.

Statistically - St Aloysius or not - life wasalways more likely than not to work out okfor me, not least because I had successfulprofessionals as parents who would,unbidden, go the extra mile. But it wouldn’twork out so well for some of the kids I satbeside in the classrooms of St Modan’s,the school to which I turned up –triumphantly - that August. These were notthe flower of prosperous Catholic Scotland:these were damaged children from brokenareas such as Raploch and Cultenhove anddepressed former mining villages such asFallin, Plean, Cowie. Their family surnameswere recognisable from the court reports inthe local papers, and sometimes thenationals. They had grown up amid neglect,unemployment, violence, alcoholism anddrug abuse.

They were tough: they arrived pre-tempered. By the age of 12 they’d settledinto a way of things, moving around theplaygrounds and corridors with the loose-limbed swagger of big cats; they foughtwith each other and, when they got boredwith that, beat up the rest of us; theydogged it; when they did turn up, theydeliberately provoked the teachers; theyplayed stupid.

But they weren’t stupid. Most struggledacademically, but you caught flashes,sometimes, of a sparkle beneath thesurface – a terrifically sharp insight,casually delivered; a one-liner of dazzlingwit; an expression of self-awareness that

stopped you in your tracks.

And then they were gone. At the end offourth year we left for the holidays, and onour return six weeks later found they had,to a boy and girl, vanished. There had beenno goodbye - they might have beensnatched by aliens. At the first opportunitythey had, simply, baled out, because that’swhat kids like them did, and were expectedto do. Standard Grades, Highers,certificates, graduation ceremonies,degrees - these were the baubles andgarlands of an invisible world.

Inevitably, you’d bump into people over theyears. Some had found work, got married,had kids, grown out of the madness. Butyou’d hear too many stories of others whohad slid into the abyss – crime, court,prison, drugs, death. Still do: a few monthsago I read in the local paper that a girlfrom my year – with whom I’d got alongwell when we were 14 but who happenedto have been born into a notorious family –had been found dead from an overdose. Atleast she reached 40.

Here’s the point: a grim fate is, for toomany of our kids, preset. There is nopossibility the angel will ever be releasedfrom the marble. And it strikes me that ahumane society – especially one such asScotland that does not wear its sense ofmoral superiority lightly and that railsagainst the apparent compassion deficit ofWestminster – might want to do somethingabout it. As might a new First Ministerwhose stated aim is to ‘tackle theinequality that scars our nation’.

A recent report by the Office for NationalStatistics contained some illuminating

findings. Those with low educationalattainment are almost five times as likelyto be in poverty. This is no surprise, ofcourse. But the factor most associated withpoor educational performance in childrenis similarly poor performance among theirparents – especially their fathers. And thestudy found that low educationalattainment by fathers had a far greaterimpact on their child’s performance thandid the state of the household finances.The implication is clear: character andstability matter more than money.

It’s now widely accepted, evenscientifically, that a child’s future isdetermined long before they start school –perhaps before they are even born. Thedeprived are not only less likely to succeedin education, they are considerably morelikely to suffer from poor mental andphysical health, to be unemployed, to go toprison, to earn less, to die younger, tobecome teenage parents of childrendoomed to be trapped in the same cycle.They simply never catch up.

So if we in Scotland care about ‘socialjustice’, why don’t we make this ournumber one public policy priority? It’s notas easy as pressing a button that nudgesup the minimum wage or increases benefitlevels, conscience-salving as those stepsare. It’s about the harder graft of getting inearly, teaching parenting skills to thosewho are obviously going to struggle whenthe baby arrives – and then providing thesupport and mentoring to disadvantagedchildren that middle-class kids can take forgranted. It’s about sticking with it.

Between 1962 and 1967, the PerryPreschool Project in Michigan taught self-

control, perseverance and social skills,along with cognitive skills, to low-IQ African-American children aged three and four.Their mothers were given parentinglessons to increase their attachment toand interactions with their children. Thishas resulted in better educational,economic and life outcomes for thoseinvolved.

The Carolina Abecedarian Project gavecognitive stimulation plus training in self-control and social skills in the first fewmonths of life to children born between1972 and 1977, and parenting lessons totheir families. The kids were given healthcheckups and health care, too, and theirprogress monitored over decades. Therehas been a lasting impact on IQ, parentingpractices, educational attainment andquality of employment – and even lowerblood pressure, lower obesity levels andless likelihood of heart trouble.

These innovations are expensive - they canbe very expensive - but it’s how I want mytax dollars spent. As the economics Nobellaureate James Heckman says, ‘qualityearly childhood programmes fordisadvantaged children more than pay forthemselves in better education, health andeconomic outcomes. Our choice in thesedifficult economic times is not just whetherto spend or cut, but whether to chooseknowledge over conventional wisdom.’

Where can the cash be found? Well, let’ssee: this year, the Scottish Government willspend around £600 million of our moneyon university tuition fees, bursaries, grantsand loans. It will shell out a further £60million on free prescriptions for all.This is tokenistic guff. I don’t need or

expect free prescriptions, and nor shouldanyone in regular employment. No one inrelatively comfortable economiccircumstances should choose a freeuniversity education for their children - anincreasingly rare policy in the developedworld anyway - over early intervention inthe lives of those kids who have least. So,if we scrap the grotesque middle-classsubsidies, we instantly make a fewhundred million available.

Scotland is the perfect size for anattritional war of this kind – big enough forworthwhile, localised pilot schemes, smallenough to roll out the most successful ofthem nationally. Ms Sturgeon could evenbegin in the deprived parts of Glasgow andDundee, as a reward for those Yes-votingcities.

It doesn’t take independence to do any ofthis – it takes courage, clear-headednessand persistence from those who claim tohave the qualities to lead. Ms Sturgeonmay, like her predecessor, prefer playingBloody Knuckles against her politicalopponents. Alternatively, she could unleashthe battering rams, catapults and flamingarrows of Scotland upon the real enemies:disadvantage, deprivation and neglect. Letthe siege begin.

(This article appeared in the Scottish DailyMail on October 6, 2014)

Over the course, our schoolchildrenproduce test scores which are neither thatmuch worse nor that much better thaninternational average. Are we reallycontent as a nation to settle for beingaverage? asks Alex Massie. A freelancejournalist, Alex is one of Scotland's leadingcommentators and blogs for the Spectator.

How do you judge the character of anation? How do you ascertain theseriousness of a country's politics? Theseare large questions with many possibleanswers but chief among them must bewhat we bequeath - collectively - to thenext generation. Do we leave them in aposition to surpass our own achievements?Do we give them the best possible chanceof making their own mark on our countryand, indeed, the world? Are we doingeverything we can to ensure this happens?

To ask these questions is to be confrontedby the nagging thought that the answer toeach of them is probably No. Publicdiscourse in Scotland often centres onquestions of equality, social justice,compassion and solidarity. This is laudable.No-one is against the idea of a fair shakefor all. No-one thinks it right that too manypeople lack the ability to make the best oftheir lives. No-one can look at the amountof squandered human capital in thiscountry and think this tolerable. To manylives are wasted, too many people areunfulfilled. Too much - much too much -talent is wasted.

It all starts with education. The affluenthave long known this. They recognise theunrivalled importance of education. It is

their legacy to their children and they willmove heaven and earth and makewhatever sacrifices are deemed necessaryto give their offspring the best possiblestart. If that means moving house, takingon a second job or remortgaging a propertythen so be it. Their children are worth it.This is their future.

For this they are often deemed "pushy" or"selfish" as though there was somethingdishonourable about thirsting for the bestfor their children. They are only guilty ofdoing for themselves what our educationsystem should do for all: give children thegreatest chance of fulfilling their potential.Where is the social justice, thecompassion, the solidarity, in an educationsystem that fails so many?

We need to be honest about this. Thatmeans acknowledging, of course, thatmany teachers do their best. That localauthorities do not seek to thwarteducational improvement. Thatconsiderable effort has been devoted toimproving educational outcomes. And,most of all, that none of it has beenenough. Not nearly enough.

If we are honest with ourselves we knowthis to be true. We know that many pupilsare well-served by Scotland's schoolsystem. The top third of Scottish pupilsperform well, at least by internationalstandards. In general our schoolchildrenproduce test results that are neithersignificantly better nor significantly worsethan the OECD average. But is average thebest we can be? Why should we settle foraverage?

A Better Way

It does not have to be like this. There is abetter way. A way that, school by schooland community by community, can make adifference. We know it can because weneed not travel far to find examples of anastonishing educational transformation.We need only look a few hundred miles tothe south.

In 1995 Hackney Downs comprehensive innorth London was closed by theauthorities. The school had become anotorious failure, even by the grimly lowstandards of sink-estate failure. The TimesEducational Supplement, far from beingencouraged that this failure was at longlast deemed unacceptable, complainedHackney Downs was the victim of a"murder". The paper moaned that "theschool was labelled a failure and sincefailure is unacceptable, it must close. Whatcrude logic!"

Crude indeed! But right. Blindingly,shatteringly, magnificently right. In 2004Mossbourne Academy opened on the samesite once occupied by Hackney Downs.Within five years 80% of its pupils weregaining five good GCSEs, including Mathsand English. It became, according to itsheadmaster, "a grammar school with acomprehensive intake". In 2011 thiscomprehensive, in one of London's poorerboroughs, sent nine pupils to CambridgeUniversity.

Mossbourne Academy is not alone.Consider King Solomon Academy, a newschool established in 2007. Some 51% ofits pupils qualify for free school meals and65% speak English as a second language.Despite these apparent obstacles 93% ofpupils in its first GCSE class achieved at

least five passes (at grades A-C), includingEnglish and Maths. Three-quartersobtained the so-called EnglishBaccalaureate of five passes in "traditionalacademic" subjects.

Comparisons between the Scottish andEnglish systems are necessarily inexactbut, by way of illustration, at JordanhillSchool in Glasgow's west end 84% of S4pupils obtained at least five standardgrades at credit level. Jordanhill regularlyfeatures in lists of Scotland's "top TenState Schools". Fewer than 3% of its pupilsqualify for free school meals.

Meanwhile at Govan High, just a couple ofmiles away from the city's affluent westend, only 10% of pupils achieved fivestandard grades at credit level (though62% achieved five awards at SCQF level 4)and, last year, not a single pupil staying onfrom S4 achieved even three Highers inS5. By the end of S6 only 2% of the S4 rollleft school with five Highers. 43% ofGovan's pupils qualify for free schoolmeals.

In other words, some of the best stateschools in Scotland are outperformed byacademies in London in which more thanhalf the intake qualify for free meals andthe gap between the performance levels ofschools such as Mossbourne and KingSolomon and Scottish schools withcomparable socio-economic demographicsis so vast it should be considered anational disgrace.

We are failing the neediest parts of oursociety, denying them the kind ofeducation their wealthier compatriotsconsider a birthright. As Doug Lemov, an

American educationalist, puts it, “theinverse correlation between wealth andattainment is immoral.”

How bad is this correlation in Scotland?Well, the Scottish government's ownanalysis of the 2009 Pisa tests concludedthat "while socio-economic status is aslikely as in other countries to affectstudents, the effect it has is likely to begreater than in other countries". In otherwords, relatively-speaking, it is better to bepoor in other countries than to be poor inScotland.

Make no mistake, a system of educationalapartheid thrives in Scotland now. Unlesswe end a culture of denial - a culture thatinsists all is well despite ample evidence tothe contrary - that cannot and will notchange.

In 2011, only 37% of Scottish studentsachieved three highers and only 26%passed five. The headline figures, however,mask a picture of appalling educationalinequality. Only 2.5% of pupils from thepoorest fifth of households achieved atleast three A-grades at Higher. That is, only220 such children - in the whole ofScotland - gained the kind of gradesneeded for admission to Scotland's leadinguniversity courses. In Dundee only fivepupils from the city's most deprivedneighbourhoods met that standard.

In 2013 one Edinburgh school recordedthat no pupils achieved five awards at S4.In East Renfrewshire's best-performingschool, by contrast, 81% of pupils enjoyedfive passes at level five. By thismeasurement the top school in EastRenfrewshire is twice as successful as the

best-performing school inClackmannanshire, East Ayrshire andMidlothian. But the best schools in EastRenfrewshire are little better - if better atall - than reform-minded schools indeprived parts of London. Indeed, inLondon there are more than 150comprehensives at which pupils from poorbackgrounds achieve GCSE results that arebetter than the national average for pupilsfrom ALL backgrounds. How many Scottishcomprehensives could make a comparableboast?

Precious few. If five passes at Higher areconsidered Scotland's educational "goldstandard" then it is depressing to notethere isn't a single state school in Scotlandfrom which a majority of pupils who enterthe school will leave with five Highers intheir pocket. Not one. In Glasgow just 7%of state-educated pupils gain five Highers.Nor is this simply a question of the privatesector "creaming off" more academicallyable pupils. In the Borders and Dumfriesand Galloway - where very few pupils areeducated privately - results are no betterthan the national average of 12% of state-educated children gaining five Highers.

Ministers boast of annual improvementsacross the country. Many of theseimprovements are tiny. Audit Scotlandreported this summer that, in the lastdecade, performance in Glasgow City hadincreased by six percent. At least thatshowed some improvement, howevermodest. In terms of S4 achievement,schools in Aberdeenshire, East Lothian andAngus actually regressed between 2004and 2013. Across ten different attainmentmeasures the chasm in performancebetween the best and worst performing

councils decreased in five, increased infour and remained the same in one. Inother words, broadly speaking, the overallpicture is the same as it was ten years ago.It is a picture which reveals that thechildren of refugees and asylum seekersdo almost as well as school as white, male,Scottish pupils.

Nor is this simply a matter of finance. AsAudit Scotland concluded, "Spending moremoney on education does not guaranteebetter pupil performance". Audit Scotlandidentified five key factors for improvingeducational attainment: Improving teacherquality, developing leadership, improvingsystems for monitoring and tracking pupildata, increasing parental involvement,developing pupil motivation andengagement.

All of which is all very well and good. Buthow is it to be achieved? Only, it is clear,with a change in culture. Only by settingschools free. Despite much well-intentioned endeavour, local authoritieshave squandered their chance. Their timeis up. How much longer are we prepared tomaintain a system that fails so manypupils?

It is not as though Scottish ministers donot see what can be done. Several havevisited outstanding charter schools in theUnited States - many of which are theinspiration for reformed schools inEngland. They come back impressed bywhat they have seen and yet, appallingly,nothing - or next to nothing - happens.Change is swallowed by the system orotherwise thwarted by powerful vestedinterests.

Why, for instance, is there no Scottishequivalent of Teach for America or TeachFirst (in England), programmes designed topersuade high-flying graduates to choose ateaching career? Why is so little attentionpaid to teacher development? In his vitalbook "Education, Education, Education"Andrew Adonis, the former Laboureducation minister, recalls asking a Finnishhead teacher about the biggest problemshe faced and was astonished to discoverit was, "My best teachers going to doPhDs". Can you imagine any Scottish headteacher having that problem?

So what can be done? The good news isthat reforms can have a remarkable effectvery quickly. The English experience tellsus this. Not every educational flower willbloom in England's educational experimentbut enough of them have already done soto demonstrate that change is possible.The soft bigotry of low expectations - asGeorge W Bush put it - can be defeated.

The second piece of good news is thatScotland is a small country. There is someevidence from England that academy"chains" can become too large for theirown good. Scale matters and small tendsto be better than large. But, especially inthe cities, successful academy schoolsquickly prove inspirational. They becomeexamples to follow. And they work. Of thatthere can be no doubt. Research by theSutton Trust has found that in five leadingAcademy chains poor pupils GCSE resultsare at least 15% better than the averagefor pupils educated in "traditional" schools.

This isn't just a question of education foreducation's sake (though that's a goodthing too) but a matter of giving our

children the best chance to succeed inwhatever they choose to do. And, vitally,once the education "bug" has been caughtit is transferred to future generations. Thecycle of low attainment and despair can bebroken.

The first matter of business, then, is toinvite the sponsors of the best academiesin England to set up schools in Scotland.As in England, these schools would becentrally-funded and, ideally, establishedacross the country. A modest start -perhaps 12 schools, or roughly 5% ofsecondaries - could, in time, kickstart alarger revolution while providing time androom to fight the political battles that mustbe won to make change on the scale andpermanence required.

Other partners - including universities andeven private schools - should also beencouraged to enter the education market.Birmingham University, for instance, isestablishing an Academy under its ownauspices that will also be used to train thenext generation of teachers. Why can'tScottish universities do something similar?

There are many things that can be done.There are many things that must be done.There is a better way. Scotland's resistanceto education reform has gone on too long.As a society it is as though we are trying todrive a car without first releasing thehandbrake.

If we're serious about the "values" we claimto cherish we'd begin to live up to theresponsibility inherent in all our talk offairness and social justice instead ofsimply paying lip service to these by nowshop-soiled shibboleths. By our actions,

may we be judged. At present we are foundwanting. How many more children mustsuffer before we recognise the problemlies, not in them, but in us?

With the Scottish Government having setitself up as a hands-on manager,Scotland’s Colleges ‘couldn’t do muchworse’, writes Sue Pinder OBE. Sue is theformer principal of James Watt College.

Following on from the IndependenceReferendum and the full engagement ofthe people of Scotland in a political debatewhich has captured the imagination anddrawn praise from around the world, it canbe argued that Scotland is moving forwardinto a positive and much clearer future.

Hopes and fears for the economy were atthe heart of the referendum debate andthere is no doubt that the Scottishelectorate recognised that economicprosperity is key to the successful Scotlandthey want for future generations.

However, economic prosperity is criticallydependent on the skills, knowledge andenterprise of the people.

To ensure that we can compete asindividuals and as a nation we need astrong and seamless education system – aconcept which has received broad politicalsupport as highlighted by the introductionof such initiatives as Learning for All, theCurriculum for Excellence, More ChoicesMore Chances to name but a few,and thecontinuing emphasis on higher education.

Still, if we were to collate a Report Card forthe component parts of the educationsystem we would see significantdisparities:

• News on the school system is positive:

Scotland has one of the mostequitable school systems in theOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)area and performs at a very highstandard in the Programme forInternational Student Assessment(PISA). There is however anachievement gap that occurs in lateprimary school and runs over into keyareas of secondary education. Thereis also intense concern fromemployers about the ‘work readiness’of school leavers.

• Scotland’s universities consistentlyappear in the world top rankings.However there is a lingering concernabout the fit between the knowledgeand skill sets of graduates and skillsgaps in the economy. Questions needto be answered about the potentialsquandering of public resources ongraduates who cannot find workand/or are not work ready when theygraduate.

• The college sector is the most criticalfor the economy: it falls to colleges tocomplement and extend the work ofschools and universities by deliveringfirst class further and highereducation. Colleges are all aboutvocational skills and workforcedevelopment; it is the college sectorthat is crucial to a vibrant andenterprising economy. Colleges andemployers together hold the key to thefuture prosperity we all want for ourcountry.

A challenge in itself: the college sector in Scotland

Hence our report card might read:

• Schools and universities….’showingencouraging signs but could do better’

• Colleges on the other hand, where theScottish Government has set itself upas a very hands-on manager…’couldn’t do much worse...’

Retrospective‘come to your local college…learn newskills….get a qualification…improve yourjob prospects…hundreds of courses at acollege near you, available full or part time’

These were the messages sent out by thecollege sector to the people of Scotland forgenerations. Hundreds of thousands ofScots – at one time as many as 1 in 10 ofthe population - had personal experienceof their local college, whether that be tobetter their educational attainment;acquire a skill; pursue a vocationalqualification; improve their businessperformance or attend one of the manyevening or leisure classes that were onoffer at centres across Scotland.

But these are changed days, and changebrings with it new challenges.

The Scottish Government (SG) beganintroducing its radical regionalisationagenda during the academic year 2010-2011. What started out as a series ofdraconian spending cuts, some £50 millionper annum, soon evolved into a directattack on the governance, performance,leadership and management of thecolleges.

The colleges were no strangers to change,

nor did they fear it, they had a longstanding reputation as drivers of socialjustice and economic growth bothnationally and within their localcommunities. They had an enviable abilityto embrace new initiatives and to respondswiftly and imaginatively to the demands oftheir students and stakeholders.

Thus a major challenge to the colleges,which remain a key, if much depleted,public service, is the political direction theyare now under and the varying levels ofcontrol, impingement or influence exertedupon them by external agencies and otherintermediaries.

In the two decades following incorporationin 1992, colleges had operated withsignificant autonomy. They were influentialboth locally and nationally and played a keyrole in shaping the skills landscape ofScotland at a time when it was evolvingrapidly from a manufacturing and industrialbase into a service and knowledgeeconomy.

In post referendum Scotland the collegesfind themselves dislocated from localeconomies and communities.Regionalisation has seen them mergedwith neighbouring colleges to createthirteen public sector institutions. They arewithout a strong representative anddevelopment body and suffer from a lowerstanding in the eyes of the currentgovernment.

What had been an encouraging movetowards parity of esteem betweenvocational and academic elements ofeducation in Scotland has been halted andreversed.

Regionalisation has been promoted undera number of different banners, includingcollaboration and efficiency. The irony isthat colleges were already collaboratingsuccessfully to improve quality of service tostudents and create the economies ofscale the government so desired. It isquestionable whether the massive cost ofthe mergers, the costs associated with thesetting up of new regional offices and thefees of the many consultants paid for outof public money will be justified in thelonger term.

What is not in any doubt is thatregionalisation has diminished colleges’public profile and changed theirrelationship with their primary funder, theScottish Funding Council (SFC). Publicperception of the colleges has always beenvariable, with many people unclear abouttheir role and status: they do not realisethat more than 20% of all higher educationin Scotland is delivered in colleges.

At the start of this decade when thegovernment crowed about a 50%progression to higher education/universitythe reality was that 37% went to university.The remaining 23% progressed tovocationally focused higher educationcourses in colleges.

However, as the funding to colleges hasbeen cut again and again, parents andstudents in Scotland could be forgiven forcontrasting the 50% of Scottish learnerswho now achieve a ‘no fees’ degree withthe college offering and finding it lessattractive.

Colleges remain in competition for scarcepublic resources with other government

funded bodies such as Skills DevelopmentScotland (SDS), Scottish QualificationsAgency (SQA), Scottish Enterprise (SE) andare often described as the ‘Cinderellasector’ when compared with theiruniversity colleagues, whose grip onpolitical favour and funding is as firm andunchallenged as ever.

And so to the challenges ahead for thecolleges as we move towards a seminalchange in the leadership of the SNP(Scottish National Party) and a new FirstMinister, new powers for Holyrood, the UKGeneral Election and the simmeringmomentum of the Yes campaign:

Political interventionColleges have always been a ‘politicalfootball,’ an easy target, and never moreso than now.

In the wake of the government’s reformagenda the number of colleges in Scotlandhas been dramatically reduced. There arenow thirteen regions, of which ten aresingle college regions. Glasgow has threecolleges within its region, which is chairedby a former First Minister; the University ofthe Highlands and Islands (UHI)encompasses nine colleges andLanarkshire for the moment has twocolleges. It is worth noting here thatfourteen colleges have their own board ofmanagement.

However, the policy and strategicleadership role now lies with the thirteenpublicly appointed remunerated chairs andtheir respective regional boards. Thosethirteen make up the national FurtherEducation (FE) Strategic Forum, which hasrepresentation from other bodies including

the Scottish Government, Scottish FundingCouncil and Skills Development Scotlandto name but a few. It is chaired anddirected by the Cabinet Secretary forEducation: it is without doubt an arm ofgovernment, very different from previousgovernance structures in the collegeswhere Chairs were unpaid and they, and allboard members, were volunteers.

Reconciling this level of overall politicalcontrol with the demands of the SFC; thepowers of the Regional Boards; the needsand priorities of local business and theinterests of staff and students is a majorleadership challenge for Principals, someof whom do not sit on their Regional Boardyet are accountable to that board via theirown college Board of Management.

Overbearing political interference viacentralised power brings with it adiminution in creativity and sphere ofinfluence in those who lead public servicesand can ultimately lead to stagnation and‘group think’; thus reducing choice,opportunity and quality of service to endusers. Ensuring this does not happen willbe a challenge for college leaders.

Unlike Northern Ireland and Wales theScottish Government chose to accede tothe Office for National Statistics (ONS)reclassification of colleges as publicbodies. This was a deliberate move tofurther extend ministerial control over thecollege sector and to limit colleges’freedom of budgetary control especially inrelation to capital expenditure and incomegeneration.

Colleges are already in competition withschools and universities to provide state of

the art buildings and learning resources.The ONS ruling presents a furtherchallenge to colleges and may have longerterm, as yet unseen, financialconsequences.

Lack of a direct and unfettered governancerole in major investment decisionsrelegates college boards from the strategicto the functional and further emphasisesthe power exerted by the ScottishGovernment via the Regional Chairs. This isa challenge to the democraticaccountability of colleges at a local level.

Academic LeadershipAcademic leadership is the responsibility ofthe college Principal and Chief Executivewho is appointed to lead and manage thecollege. The Principal acts as chief adviserto the Board of Management along withwhich she/he sets the strategic directionand objectives of the college and monitorsits financial and educational performanceagainst agreed targets.

Today’s Principals find themselves moreakin to their pre-incorporation colleagues:responsible, ultimately accountable to aplethora of ‘masters’, yet not completely ‘incharge’ and with limited independence ofaction.

Their challenge is to re-define theirleadership role internally and externallywhen the overall strategic leadership andfunding control of their college lies with anindependent Chair and a Regional Board,which in turn sets funding parameters toindividual college boards which are part ofa multi college region.

Principals’ personal leadership skills are

also tested and challenged. In an uncertainenvironment where teaching staff numbersfell by 22% between 2008-09 and 2012-13;student numbers declined; curriculumwas significantly trimmed back and theirown position is not exactly rock solid; it isdown to Principals to offer reassuranceand stability to staff, students and theircommunity.

Students are a force for positive change inany college and their expectations are ofparticular importance to college leaderswho must balance the needs and interestsof students against what they canreasonably provide. The relationshipbetween the college its StudentAssociation and the National Union ofStudents (NUS) should be a formative one,but it may become more challenging in thewake of the referendum, particularly asyoung people become more politicallyaware and socially motivated.

Education professionals know thatinnovation and creativity underpinadvances in learning which are expressedthrough academic freedom andindependence of thought. Witness thecontrast between Scotland’s colleges andits universities which still bask in academicfreedom and can set their own agenda toachieve competitive advantage.

FundingSome senior politicians claim not tounderstand the formula funding ofcolleges, but they have understood enoughabout it to re-direct funding that should goto colleges for the delivery of training andskills, to other intermediary bodies such asSkills Development Scotland. This missioncreep is a serious threat to colleges and

shows no sign of abating.

The continuing erosion in college funding,coupled with the budget cuts referred toelsewhere is evidenced in Audit Scotland’s2013 report which reveals that totalincome for colleges fell by 9% between2010-11 and 2011-12.

Audit Scotland asserts that there will be afurther reduction of 11% in governmentgrant between 2011-12 and 2014-15.

These budget cuts are real and haveresulted in major restructuring of thecollege sector; the loss of hundreds ofjobs; a decrease in women returners and areduced curriculum portfolio, particularly inpart time study - and all this whilemaintaining activity levels, thereby severelyreducing the unit of resource available tofund learning and support students.

What business would not be challenged bya 20% drop in its income and asubsequent reduction in its unit ofresource over four financial years?

Widening AccessFor decades now widening access tofurther and higher education, especially forpeople from the least privileged socialclasses and under-represented groups, hasbeen one of the main priorities for thecollege sector. It is an area in whichcolleges have excelled.

In 2003 the then Cabinet Secretarylaunched an ambitious drive to promoteand embed Lifelong Learning acrossScotland. Aimed primarily at young peoplenot in education or training (the NEETs);women; the unemployed and the under-

qualified this was a very popular andsuccessful initiative.

The colleges were at the heart of LifelongLearning; using their skills and expertisethey engaged the disengaged and wontheir confidence, encouraging a broadchurch of learners back into active learningby a variety of means.

Colleges gained even more credibility withtheir students by delivering courses at avery local level, courses which promotedself-confidence and boosted employabilityand skills in some of Scotland’s poorestcommunities. At this time the collegeswere the ‘go to’ sector as politicians inScotland and Westminster introduced araft of measures to address the worryinggrowth in youth unemployment.

That credibility is now under severechallenge because funding cuts haveinevitably meant cuts in numbers enrolledin Further Education. Enrolments havefallen significantly over recent yearsaccording to the Funding Council’s In Factdata base. Inevitably those people nowmissing from the college population arethose who most need to be there.

In session 2010-11 almost 272,000students enrolled in colleges, by 2012-13that had fallen by 25% to less than204,000 students.

The Wood CommissionSir Ian Wood’s report was commissionedby the Scottish Government. It presentsmajor challenges and opportunities for thecollege sector, not least because it placescolleges where they should be – in pollposition in the delivery of vocational

education.

The government has made a commitmentto implement Sir Ian Wood’s mainrecommendations which are ambitious andfar reaching and include

• Greater coherence in the system anda more proactive collaborationbetween schools, parents, pupils,teachers, employers and colleges

• The report promises that colleges willbe at the centre of a future ‘worldclass vocational education system’

• Wood proposes a majorstrengthening of the school/collegepartnership with pupils being able toaccess qualifications such asNational Certificates and HigherNational Certificates whilst still atschool.Under Wood’srecommendations 60% of pupils whodo not achieve Highers will leaveschool with a vocational qualification

• The Wood report also proposes asignificant increase inapprenticeships up from 10,000 in2007 to 30,000 new starts per year.

The challenge for the college sector is oneof capacity. Spending cuts have resultedin up to a 30% reduction in experiencedstaff in some colleges and the removal ofwhole swathes of curriculum. Difficultfinancial decisions have meant thatinvestment in infrastructure andexpensive resources has been cut backespecially in highly specialised technicaland practical skills.

ConclusionBy its very nature change is unpredictable,but whatever change the future holds forcolleges in Scotland they will rise to thechallenge and continue to do what theyhave always done – the very best for theirstudents.

If the Scottish Government is serious aboutits commitment to implement Sir IanWood’s recommendations it will go a longway towards delivering the prosperousScotland we would all like to live in andmaybe then the Report Card would read:

SSccoottllaanndd’’ss CCoolllleeggeess ……..’’ccoouullddnn’’tt ddoo bbeetttteerr!!’’

Summary of the challenges facing

TThhee ccoolllleeggee sseeccttoorr::• The current political environment and

future government policy• Unhelpful and overbearing political

interference at a micro-level• The power base of the Regional Chairs• The influence of external consultants• Potential changes to the funding

methodology• The multiple layers of governance and

accountability, especially in multicollege regions

• Further budget cuts• The lack of a strong, politically

independent representative voice• Competitors with whom they cannot

effectively compete• Public perception and profile.

CCoolllleeggee lleeaaddeerrss::• Complex relationships with funders,

partners and stakeholders• Strategic frustration and operational

overload• Regaining public confidence in the

wake of cuts and mergers• Offering strong leadership and

reassurance to staff in the face ofcontinuing uncertainty

• Trade union unrest• Expectations of students, especially in

light of their recent voting experience• Personal risk, isolation and emotional

resilience• Succession planning

Scottish higher education institutions likeDundee University are punching abovetheir weight. In a changing world, thatcan’t be taken for granted, writes PeteDownes. Professor Pete Downes isPrincipal and Vice-Chancellor of DundeeUniversity

The University of Dundee’s new DiscoveryCentre, which opened for business inOctober is a place where remarkablediscoveries in biosciences will be madethat may impact on all our lives. How thiswas achieved during one of the deepesteconomic recessions this country hasexperienced is a microcosm of what makesScotland’s higher education systemamongst the most admired and successfulanywhere in the world.

The Discovery Centre is a citadel ofglittering science and technology housingscientists from around the globe where aninvestment of £5million of ScottishGovernment funds leveraged an additional£20million of capital investment from UKand international sources and a further£30million of research grants. The Centrewill create 180 new, high value jobs,providing a further boost to Dundee’s lifesciences cluster which already accounts foraround 16% of the region’s economy.

At the same time Dundee has nurtured areputation for the quality of studentexperience and this year we achieved ourhighest ever National Student Survey andInternational Student Barometer scores.We have also admitted record numbers ofstudents from the most deprivedbackgrounds in Scotland enabling people

from all sections of society to participate inour country’s economic success.

This is a scene that is repeated acrossScotland with Universities at the heart ofactivities which are key to the country’ssuccess. The impact our universities havemade, both within Scotland and on theworld stage, has been remarkable and wecontinue to punch above our weight inmany ways as drivers of economic, socialand cultural change. According to the UKGovernment’s Scotland Analysis Scienceand Research paper, our universitiesemploy over 38,000 staff and supportmore than 142,000 jobs in the Scottisheconomy creating £1.3billion of exportearnings. In 2012/13 Scottish Universitiesattracted £257million of UK ResearchCouncil grants which represents around13.1% of the UK total. This figure issignificantly higher than either Scotland’s8% share of UK GDP or its 8.4% share ofUK population.

Disruptive ForcesScotland’s universities operate within aglobal sector that is undergoingremarkable expansion and disruptivechange. We are witnessing the emergenceof major new competitors and sources ofstudents, particularly in India, China andother countries of the far east. Thedemographics are hugely complex withnations like China expanding HE rapidly,but soon to experience decliningproportions of young people, whilst incountries like India there are huge andincreasing numbers of potential studentsmany of whom do not have access to HE.There are global shifts from public towards

Scotland’s universities need plenty of help to stay ahead of the game

private provision and technologicaldevelopments, such as the advent ofmassive open on-line courses, or MOOCS,which claim to offer the best academicprogrammes to hundreds of thousands ofpeople worldwide for free.

The worldwide expansion of HE also bringscompetition in terms of research and theability to use the fruits of research to driveeconomic development. This competitionmay be seen in terms of which nations willnurture and invest in a research culturewhich draws inward investment and thegrowth of innovation-based economiesreplacing economies currently built on lowvalue manufacturing. The most successfulmodels of innovation, therefore, will drivethe most prosperous economies of thefuture and universities which developeffective innovation strategies will enhancetheir reputations, not just locally, but onthe world stage.

Strength through autonomyIn the context of such disruptive forces thecontinuing success and globalcompetitiveness of Scotland’s universitiesmust not be taken for granted. We shouldlook at how we achieved our currentsuccess, what will be needed to keepScotland at the forefront of HE and hencewhat policies Scotland should adopt tosupport success.

Detailed analysis of different HE systemsshows that there is a strong correlationbetween the degree of autonomy affordedto a country’s universities and theirsuccess. Scotland’s universities areamongst the most autonomous in theworld allowing them to set their ownstrategic visions, missions and goals within

an effective and trusted framework ofgovernance. To paraphrase words used ina rather different context in Scotland in thelast couple of years, autonomy gives ouruniversities control of the levers with whichwe can respond to opportunities thatotherwise might be seen as threats.Autonomy allows universities to plan andinvest for the long term, to build diverseincome streams and to innovate in theirresearch and their educational missions. InDundee, for example we are able torespond to the particular needs of our cityand region, stimulating new economicdevelopments, educating a skilledworkforce and catering for students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. At the sametime more than 60% of our income comesfrom sources other than the ScottishGovernment.

Mission diversity is an importantconsequence of autonomy promotingcompetitiveness and internationaladvantage. Even our largest universitiescannot hope to build competitiveadvantage in all areas of opportunity, butthe sector as a whole, comprising ofdistinct, autonomous institutions, can beexpected to do so. This gives Scottishstudents a greater breadth of subjectchoice and innovative curricula and we canachieve depth of focus too through oursmall specialist institutions. it doesn’t allhave to be based on competition withScottish universities frequentlycollaborating and sharing best practicewhere it make sense to do so. Our realcompetitors are outside Scotland, not eachother.

We need policies in Scotland therefore thatcelebrate autonomy and support diversity

of our institutions. Governing bodiesshould possess the breadth and depth ofexperience and leadership needed tochallenge executive teams to be forwardlooking and ambitious, to strengtheninstitutional brands and distinctivestrengths and to create the financialheadroom needed to invest in newinitiatives, modern estates and the mostadvanced infrastructure. SuccessiveScottish Governments will also beambitious for our universities to contributeto a successful Scotland which they arelikely to equate with their own policyinitiatives. This is currently done at armslength via the Scottish Funding Councilwhich distributes Scottish GovernmentFunding and sets targets in key areas ofpolicy through outcome agreementsnegotiated between the Funding Counciland individual institutions. Outcomeagreements have been controversial, butcan be a force for good if they championdiversity and demonstrate the collectivecontributions of the sector as a whole.

If universities function autonomously andhave distinctive missions what is it thatdistinguishes a university from otherbodies that deliver post-16 education. InScotland most would agree a definitionbased on the ability to award the PhDdegree, in other words that the job ofeducation to degree and postgraduatelevel is done in an environment whereresearch is conducted which profoundlyinfluences student learning. With thisdefinition all universities will both educateand conduct research. I would add a thirdelement which I believe is also true of alluniversities in Scotland and that willbecome increasingly important, which is tobe drivers of innovation. Innovation is

about putting new knowledge and ways ofdoing things to work on behalf of societyoften, but not exclusively, associated witheconomic impact. All three of these areasof contribution in the majority ofUniversities are played out, not just locally,but on an international stage. What thenare the policy requirements needed toensure Scotland’s universities remain atthe global forefront of educationalstandards and quality, continue to beinternationally leading in research andcommit to driving innovation?

FundingBefore tackling each of the above issues inturn it is worth making some genericcomments about funding of universities. Ithas long been an ambition of both thesector and the Scottish Government tosecure funding for our universitiesequivalent to the upper quartile of OECDcountries. It is understandable why thishas not been possible in recent years, butit should remain the goal. Given the timescales likely to be required to achieve thisoutcome it would need cross party supportand maintaining funding at that level wouldneed long term commitment when therewill be competing claims for public fundingand changing political priorities. Thereneeds, therefore, to be broadunderstanding that Universities offer asignificant advantage when it comes to theefficient and effective use of public funds.The annual economic impact of Scotland’suniversities now stands at around£6.7billion GVA (gross value added),meaning that every £1 of publicinvestment in our universities results inmore than £6 of economic impact. Thatextra money is attracted from sourcesacross the UK, Europe and internationally,

from governments, charities, industry andphilanthropy all built on the essential coreof funding from the Scottish Government.The desire to keep Scotland’s universitiesat the top table internationally mustcontinue to be shown at the top level ofgovernment whichever political party holdsthe balance of power.

InternationalisationAchieving our international ambitions is notjust about maintaining competitive levelsof funding. We must also be able to recruitthe most talented staff and students fromaround the world. Much of the £1billionplus export earnings of ScottishUniversities arise from overseas studentsstudying and spending in Scotland. Morethan this, our overseas students and staffenrich our campuses and broaden theexperience of students from Scotland.There is currently a paucity of homestudents who take up opportunities tostudy abroad so that their experience ofglobal citizenship disproportionatelydepends upon overseas students cominghere. There is no doubt that the current UKimmigration policy has significantlydamaged overseas student recruitmentespecially from vulnerable markets such asIndia and sub-Saharan Africa, policieswhich I have in the past said are shootingus in the foot. In the short term I andothers have argued that the studentimmigration figures should be removedand treated separately from the aggressivetarget to reduce net migration into the UKand to restore the post-study work visawhich is available in competitor countries.Beyond this and more generally policiesare needed which support and encouragehigh talent migration into the UK andScotland.

EducationI have already discussed the rapidlychanging landscape for higher educationnationally and internationally. Thecombined effects of expansion,technological developments and increasingcompetition focus particular attention onhow to fund the rising national costs oftuition and it is not surprising that tuitionand student support mechanismsrepresent the areas of greatest divergencebetween the policy environment inScotland and elsewhere in the UK. Highlydivergent systems are in place throughoutthe world too and we should take theopportunity to learn from the experience ofthese other systems.

Choosing who contributes to the cost ofhigher education, including public, privateand personal sources, will always be adecision for politicians, but we should andindeed must agree on the principles suchfunding mechanisms aim to achieve. Firstlyany system needs stability over timeframestypically much longer than the politicalcycles. It therefore follows that anapproach which works today mustextrapolate to the future. Whilst there aresome downward pressures on cost whereScotland has been particularly successfulin achieving substantial improvements inbusiness efficiency, the trend from where Isee it seems inexorably upwards andfunding mechanisms will need to be ableto respond. Secondly, Scotland’s approachmust ensure our universities continue tobe drivers of social inclusion andopportunity for all. Tuition costs andstudent support must be compatible withencouraging enrolment of students fromthe most deprived sections of society.Finally any funding mechanism must be

compatible with maintaining the flow ofstudents between the constituent nationsof the UK something which depends asmuch upon England, Wales and NorthernIreland as it does upon the systems wechoose to adopt in Scotland.

ResearchThere are two fundamental principles offunding research in Scottish/UKuniversities which are admired throughoutthe world and arguably underpin oursuccess. The Haldane principle, whichargues that decisions about whichfundamental research to support shouldbe made by researchers rather thanpoliticians; and the dual support systemwhich provides core funding for researchinfrastructure alongside response modefunding on a competitive basis distributedprimarily through research councils.

The Haldane principle is vital to ensureuniversities continue to fulfil their key roleas producers of new knowledge andunderstanding, the basic fuel of anyinnovation-based economy, and asinspiration and a source of national prideand reputation. Dual support is equallyimportant because it ensures the bestresearch departments can attract the bestresearchers from around the world and canmake long term commitments to buildingand maintaining cutting edge infrastructurewhilst responding rapidly to newopportunities.

Researchers in Scotland have access to awide range of funding sources whichprovides us with great flexibility. During thereferendum debate Universities Scotlandand both the Scottish and UK Governmentsacknowledged the importance of the UK-

wide research ecosystem for Scottishresearch. This includes UK funding sourcessuch as the Research Councils and majorcharities and much shared infrastructureas well as the UK-wide ResearchExcellence Framework (formerly theResearch Assessment Exercise) whichrates the quality of research on a disciplineby discipline basis and is influential withinthe UK and amongst our internationalpartners. The policy environment needs tosupport these distinctive features andreaffirm Scotland’s long term commitmentto UK-wide assessment and fundingstreams which are vital to maintain ourworld class research reputation.

InnovationWhen difficult decisions are made insuccessive spending reviews about whichareas of public funding should be cut,protected or expanded, the case foruniversities will depend upon how well wedemonstrate our impact on society,especially but not exclusively our economicimpact. Scotland’s economic prospects, asmuch as its historic success, dependsupon the creation and growth of innovativecompanies. Our universities are vitalcomponents of Scotland’s innovationecosystem both in terms of research andknowledge exchange to exploit the fruits ofresearch and in educating the nextgeneration of employable, innovativegraduates.

Scotland’s innovation ecosystem ischaracterised by relatively high levels ofinvestment and exceptionally high levels ofinternational recognition of university-ledresearch, but relatively weak investment inresearch and development in business ofall scales, but especially amongst the small

to medium sized companies that comprisethe largest proportion of Scotland’sbusiness capacity. Without intervention thisrisks the possibility that Scottishdiscoveries in our universities will beexploited elsewhere because our ownbusinesses lack the necessary capacity forresearch and development.

Part of the solution therefore will be policyinitiatives that encourage and supportresearch and development in Scottishcompanies and inward investment frominnovative companies of scale fromelsewhere attracted by the world classreputation of Scotland’s universities.

Scottish universities perform well byinternational benchmarks in some aspectsof innovation especially in terms of newcompanies that spin out from universityresearch. But there is much more we cando to prioritise innovation and the impactof our work. This might include a researchculture that explicitly rewards andcelebrates the knowledge exchangeactivities of staff; that places lessemphasis on intellectual property andmore on open innovation/partnershipmodels of collaboration with industry; andwhich incentivises and facilitatesengagement with SMEs. These are justsome of the objectives of ‘InnovationScotland’ which comprises a high levelForum chaired by the Cabinet Secretary forEducation and Lifelong Learning, industrysector led components including the newinnovation centres, university knowledgeexchange services and ‘Interface’ whichbrokers collaboration between universitiesand business.

In terms of the policy environment, all

universities in Scotland should be part ofour innovation ecosystem with rolesreflecting their divergent missions. Manycommentators draw a distinction betweenfundamental and applied aspects ofresearch which may imply that innovationcould be promoted by shifting theemphasis to give more support to applied,near-market research. Without new money,however, this would undermine one ofScotland’s great strengths. We can’tcompete with the scale of many of ourcompetitors, so we must back ouringenuity. To do this we need to facilitatetransitions from fundamental knowledge toapplied research to proof of concept toinnovation in partnership with industry. Thecomponents of Innovation Scotland arewell placed to promote such an approach,but the results will not be instantaneous.Once again some policy consistency andconfidence in the longer term will beneeded. There has been too much chopand change in the past where theemphasis has been on specific solutionsrather than the overall health of a complexecosystem.

Making the right decisions now about howbest to support innovation could not bemore important for Scotland’s universitiesand the long term health of our economy.In order to gather the evidence and makeclear recommendations on what works andwhat Scotland could do better theindependent National Centre forUniversities and Business (NCUB) has setup the ‘Growing Value Scotland’ Task Forcewhich will be co-chaired by Sir Ian Diamondof Aberdeen University and Rob Woodward,Chief Executive of STV and will report itsfindings in the middle of 2015. Itsexecutive and steering groups comprising

of leading figures from the public, privateand university sectors are well placed tolay the foundations of a new chapter inScotland’s economic development in whichuniversities must play an essential part.

In conclusionI agreed to write this article long before theoutcome of the Referendum to decideScotland’s constitutional future wasknown. In reality the policy issues I haveoutlined would have been the sameregardless of the outcome although thesolutions and their context may well havebeen different. By remaining part of theUnion, the objective to retain the UK-wideresearch infrastructure, including access toResearch Council funding and participationin the Research Excellence Frameworkshould now not be in doubt. Whether thefurther devolved powers on offer allowScotland to develop divergent policysolutions to the issues described hereremain to be seen.

In dealing more imaginatively andcreatively with our most challengingchildren who need special care, we havemade great progress in improving schoolsfor all children writes Sophie Pilgrim, aDirector of Kindred Scotland and amember of Scottish Children's ServicesCoalition.

David Cameron has said that when herealized the extent of his son Ivan’sdisabilities, he assumed that he and hiswife would dedicate themselves to beingselfless carers. He has talked of hisamazement that he came to feel that itwas Ivan who deserved his gratitude andnot the other way round.

Many parents of disabled children, eventhose with extremely challengingbehaviour, would recognize this sentiment.It seems contradictory to say that caring fora disabled child brings joy and meaning toyour life when at the same time you arebitterly complaining and battling on allfronts for support (an experience the PrimeMinister perhaps doesn’t share). So it isno wonder that valuing disability does notcome easily to our institutions. It isdifficult to make the mind-shift and thinkof disability in a positive light. This maychange with the inspirational Equalities Act2010 that proudly sets a new standard forthose who provide public services to treateveryone with dignity and respect. Whocan say no to that?

In conversations about education budgets,and more recently, education cuts, there isa pervasive view that children withadditional support needs are a burden on

our education system. This is usuallyexpressed in words to the effect that‘actually, they get more than their fairshare of resources’. But there is a case tobe made that positive developments in oureducation system have been driven by theneed to provide for children with additionalneeds. Every child at some point will havesome extra reason for requiring support.They may go through a phase of beingbullied, struggle with a particular subject,or experience illness, the separation oftheir parents or loss of a grandparent. Orperhaps all of these. How much better tohave a responsive, caring school settingthat is able to nurture each child’s journey.

If we look back in time, we see a verydifferent world for children with disabilities.It was only following the 1978 WarnockReport that children were entitled to aneducation. Prior to this, institutionalizationof disabled children was an acceptednorm. None of us would want to go backto such a world, and since the milleniumwe have seen an acceleration of change inour schools. This momentum has beendriven by an inclusion agenda led byparents, a human rights campaign that hasgone largely uncelebrated. Hundreds, ifnot thousands, of parents across Scotlandhave dedicated their precious spare timeto fighting for a better deal for their owndisabled children and for disabled childrenof the future.

We often hear of the dispute betweenthose in favour and those againstinclusion. Is there really a dispute aboutthe benefits of mainstream, or is thisactually about a squeeze on stretched

Ask not what our schools do for them: The contribution of children with disabilities toeducation in Scotland

resources? If those against inclusion satdown with those who are in favour ofinclusion and we unpicked our arguments Ithink we would find we are on the sameside. We want a better deal for childrenwith disabilities. We would unite todisagree with those who say that childrenwith disabilities get more than their fairshare. We would agree that there aremajor challenges to inclusion.

The presumption of mainstream which isenshrined in the Standards in Scotland’sSchools etc. Act 2000, is described in thefollowing extract from a Scottish Executivecircular (3/2002):

“The intention behind the new duty is toestablish the right of all children andyoung persons to be educatedalongside their peers in mainstreamschools unless there are good reasonsfor not doing so. It is based on thepremise that there is benefit to allchildren when the inclusion of pupilswith special educational needs withtheir peers is properly prepared, well-supported and takes place inmainstream schools within a positiveethos. Such inclusion helps schools todevelop an ethos to the benefit of allchildren, and of society generally. It alsohelps meet the wishes of many parentsthat their children should be educatedalongside their friends in a school asclose to home as possible.”

Can anyone disagree with this statement?I was at a mediation meeting recently(which I have fictionalized). The parents ofa five year old girl had asked for a place ina special school. Their daughter attendsnursery at a mainstream school. They had

been turned down and offered a place atthe mainstream school with 15 hourssupport from a Pupil Support Assistant(PSA). In the meeting we explained thedifficulties the child faces in coping withthe school and the Head Teacher explainedall the different ways in which the schoolcould help to support the child. Theoutcome was that the education authoritygranted full time PSA hours. The HeadTeacher was pleased. The parents weredelighted. They acknowledged that thiswas a better solution than they had hopedfor in the first place.

The presumption of mainstream does notmean that all children will be inmainstream. It means that all children willbe in mainstream if that is the best thingfor them, balanced with the needs of theirpeers. If children are placed inmainstream and their needs cannot bemet, then this is not ‘inclusion’. It is asimple failure to provide. In the last fiveyears we have seen shrinking budgets foreducation and yet there are much higherexpectations that the particular needs ofeach child are met. In this context, itbecomes more likely that ‘inclusion’ is saidto fail.

The Education (Additional Support forLearning)(Scotland) Acts 2004 & 2009radically changed the landscape ofeducation across Scotland. The legislativeframework was broadened to include anychild requiring additional support and verylarge groups of children were includedsuch as children with English as anadditional language and children who arelooked after. In 2013, around 19.5% ofpupils in Scotland’s schools were identifiedas having an additional support need

(131,621 children). 15,510 pupils wererecorded as Assessed or DeclaredDisabled which equates to 2.3% of allpupils.

Anyone passing judgement on whether thepresumption of mainstreaming has been asuccessful policy must consider thedemographic pressure on resources. Themost significant challenge in meeting theneeds of the 19.5% of children withadditional support for learning is that thedemand for special school places isincreasing. This is because advances inmedicine have meant that prematurebabies are surviving from a younger age,and these very young babies are likely tohave complex medical needs. In addition,children with complex or life limitingconditions like David Cameron’s son Ivanare surviving longer than previouslyexpected. Of course medicine is advancingto improve the prognosis for these childrenand this is to be celebrated. The recentstory of Ashya King and his parents’ questfor proton therapy and other presscoverage shows that the public aresupportive of new treatments for children,irrespective of cost.

Increased life expectancy means morechildren with very complex needs in specialschools and this means that other childrenwho would in the past have special schoolplaces will move to mainstream. We needto ask Education Officers about thesetrends because they are hidden withincurrent statistics on additional support forlearning. Local authorities are beingforced to create tacked-on special schoolclasses to cope. It would not take a lot ofresource to ask the views of EducationOfficers on this matter.

There are multiple other demographic andpolicy factors that add to the pressure onresources. The increase in nursery hourswill mean authorities are supportingchildren with additional needs from ayounger age. There has been a dramaticdecrease in the age of diagnosis of autismas a result of public awareness of thecondition and improvements in provision.Numbers of children with English as anadditional language have increased andthere has been a bulge in the schoolpopulation. All these factors add strain tostretched resources in mainstreamschools.

But there is also good news. In the sametime frame, we have seen the introductionof Curriculum for Excellence and Getting ItRight For Every Child (GIRFEC). There is asynergy between these developments andthe ASL legislation that may protect usthrough these times of austerity.Curriculum for Excellence emphasizes theneed of children to learn according to theirown strengths and needs. GIRFEC is aboutaccountability and making sure that eachchild is on the radar. Overall, there is ashift towards supporting childrenindividually. These commitments to ourchildren are something to be really proudof. We should congratulate our policymakers for such a coherent and caringstrategic approach. It is inspiring to hearthat some schools in Edinburgh have takena whole school approach and trained everystaff member in autism awareness.Doesn’t this make sense? After all, it hasbeen contended that almost all of us areon the autistic spectrum, it is just thatmost of us are not adversely affected inour daily lives. And many educationalistwould say that an autism friendly

environment benefits all learners.

With the best possible policies withinmainstream schools, surely we all knowthat some children need exceptionalarrangements. It is clear that a very smallnumber of children have acute psychiatricproblems and these children areunavoidably out of mainstream school,sometimes for many months or years.Other children have complex medicalneeds that are prohibitively difficult tomeet outside of special schoolenvironments. Children with learningdisability and Autistic Spectrum Disordersmay have a need for a level of structureand stability which conflicts with thelearning needs of their mainstream peers.Children with Social Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties may disrupt thelearning environment. Meeting theeducational needs of these children ischallenging for education authorities whohave to provide appropriately from arestricted range of placements.

At Kindred we support around 700 parentseach year in Edinburgh, the Lothians andFife. Of these parents around a quarterhave come to our service for support overthe educational placement of their child.We have greatly improved our statisticalrecording over the last three years and weare nearly at a point where we can look atour data over time. From what we canalready see, it seems likely that mostparents will return to use our service everythree or four years, and that the majoritywill ask for support with regard toeducation at some point or another duringtheir child’s school years. Parents tend toturn to us for support at times of‘transition’ when the child is moving from

nursery to primary school, from primaryschool to secondary school, and fromsecondary school to college or adultservices. These are times whenassessment, planning and decision-makingare heightened.

The fact that many parents require supportover educational placement might seem tosuggest excessive conflict or a failure ofthe system. Another explanation is thatnegotiating the right schooling for a child isa complex process requiring the specialistinput of teachers, Head Teachers,educational psychologists, educationdepartment staff and the parentsthemselves. Parents often feel stressedbecause they feel they are competing forscare resources and are unfamiliar withsuch daunting negotiations.

Both parents and professionals are almostalways acting on good motives, but oftentheir motives do not coincide. Parents arestanding up for their child, whileprofessionals are trying to be fair to all.Feelings run high, and we have evolved aneffective system for managing thesedelicate negotiations, often involvingmediation between the parent(s) and theeducation authority, with advocacy tosupport the voice of the parent, and wherenecessary recourse to the AdditionalSupport Needs Tribunal Scotland. Whenwe have all worked together to resolve adispute there is a palpable feeling ofsatisfaction all round. Skilled folk havecome together to negotiate the right schoolsolution for this child, given the availableresources.

A key player in this process is theeducational psychologist. Their role is to

give a professional assessment of theeducational needs of the child so thatdecisions can be made about allocatingresources with an appropriate expertise. Aprincipal Educational Psychologist wastelling me recently about the drastic effectof cuts over the last two years to grantfunding for trainees. The quality ofapplicants has plummeted. We willcertainly be seeing the impact of thisdecision in years to come with a drop instandards of decision-making on crucialresource allocation as well as fallingstandards of support to parents. Thedecision to cut the funding of grants totrainee Educational Psychologists showsthat our carefully constructed system fornegotiating the right education for verychallenging children is vulnerable tostealth cuts. We have to be on our guard.

Those who are closely involved in thisworld of Additional Support for Learningsee patterns in areas where provision doesnot attain desired standards. There is amajor issue about the number of youngpeople not in education and also thenumber who have a greatly reducedtimetable. It is typical that parents whoask for placements in the independentsector’s special schools do so becausetheir child has been out of school for longperiods of time, anything up to eighteenmonths, or because they are only in schoolfor an hour a day or some other restrictivetimetable missing out on the fullcurriculum. Most of these young peoplehave not been excluded for bad behaviour.They are out of school because theycannot cope with the school environment.If they are given the right support in theright circumstances, they can often flourishand develop into independent adults -

sometimes displaying considerable talents.

Out of authority placements in residentialschools and those who are able to fighthave a prolonged battle on their hands. Itis usually over a year for the process to runits course. If a young person is fourteenwhen the process begins then crucial timeis lost.

This is evidently the next challenge forthose of us with a close involvement. Weneed to develop new models of schoolingfor children, particularly those on theautistic spectrum. These children andyoung people need smaller, calmer schoolsettings which incorporate intensivebehavioural support. Such schools havebeen proven to be successful in theindependent sector. Local authorities muststart looking at developing their ownprovision to meet demand because there isa business case which will be hard tooverlook.

It has been entirely predictable thatchildren on the autistic spectrum would bethe most difficult to place in Scotland’seducational system. We are able toprovide for children with complex medicalneeds and we would consider it entirelyunacceptable if these children were notoffered school places. It follows that wewould be able to provide for children andyoung people who are overwhelmed by amainstream environment. These childrenand young people have somehow becomethe undeserving.

Fortunately, recent legislativedevelopments such as Self DirectedSupport, the Public Bodies (Joint Working)Scotland Bill, and new rights for young

people under the Children & Young PeopleAct (Scotland) 2014 will result in provisionmoving away from the institutionalization ofthe past. As children, young people andtheir families are able to take more‘personalised’ choices, so long termoutcomes will improve. Parents are likelyto opt for local support for their childrenand young people including education,respite and housing. This will mean thatfamilies retain their connections and areable to provide natural networks ofsupport. The practice of sending childrenand young people far from home forpsychiatric care or residential schooling onthe grounds that there is no suitable localcare will soon become a thing of the past.

Without our most challenging andrewarding children we would not havemade such astonishing progress in ourthinking on policy and legislation for ouruniversal statutory services. We would nothave had the imagination to travel so far.If we see a better future for us all it isbecause we have been inspired by thosewho need our selfless care.

Curriculum for Excellence is an opportunitymissed. Cut back on the well paidconsultants, get rid of 32 separatedirectors of education, and give headteachers real freedom and autonomy,writes John Low. The former rector ofBreadalbane Academy and head of PerthGrammar School, John Low is one ofScotland's most experienced teachers.Under his leadership, his schools wonnumerous awards. He is now retired.

I believe that we have a lack of vision andtrue creative and strategic leadership atthe very top which is stifling the spark thatis needed for education in the 21stCentury.

These are my personal views. I shouldemphasise I am not a member of theConservative Party. I realise as I write thisthat the immediate reaction of manyformer colleagues in the educationalestablishment will be to attack these viewsby pointing to individual statistics and orexamples. However, my comments aresincere and based on many years ofsuccess so I ask they are taken for whatthey are: a considered and honest opinion.

I would state as a starting point that Igenuinely believe we have the best cohortof teachers in Scottish schools that wehave ever had and that schools are by andlarge doing a very good job in deliveringwhat they are asked. However, withvisionary and motivational leadership atthe highest level, and the correct tools todo the job, we could do so much better.

What is education for? If you look atCurriculum for Excellence (CfE) it has ahuge list of things which tell us what it isfor but in reality it is just that - a list. Itdoes not encapsulate the essence of whatwe are about, which is simple. Througheducation we aim to maximise thepotential of the individual both forthemselves and for society and nothingless. How we do that is the moot point;what structures, partnerships andresources do we need to deliver thatvision?

Currently I do not believe we have anational ‘vision’. Rather we have a seriesof statements and things we are doing.Education is compartmentalised andpigeon holed into ‘what schools do’, ‘whatcolleges do’, what ‘Universities do’ etc(often parents and business are totallymissed out of the equation) andessentially, by this narrow approach, weentirely miss the point. I am sureEducation Scotland and the EducationSecretary would say this is not what CfE isabout but it is certainly what is happening.Without a doubt some good work has beendone in some areas; for example, Perthand Kinross have shown a strong lead indeveloping integrated working byestablishing Education and ChildrenServices. But across the country we cannotclaim to have the strategic lead we need.

Curriculum for Excellence was and is agreat opportunity missed as it has simplyrevamped (with knobs on) what currentlyexisted rather than fundamentally look atthe bigger questions. This was entirely

Headteachers need and want a coherent vision for Scottish Education

understandable and predictable as thereare so many vested interests that ‘breakingthe mould’ was and is quite radical andtherefore very unlikely to happen withoutbold and visionary leadership. Putting theresponsibility for developing CfE into thehands of Education Scotland, the SQA anda vast array of expensive ‘consultants’such as former Directors of Education wasa recipe for a polishing up what alreadyexisted. The very nature of their longexperience and bureaucratic vestedinterest meant we could not expect to getanything other than a new version of whatwe already had. The people who shouldhave been at the front of the process -teachers, headteachers, parents, pupils,Business, Colleges and Universities - wereleft to follow on along the path chosen forthem and contribute to the detail not thevision. A question for national governmentis this: how many times have you broughtheadteachers together to ask them whatthey think, what they need, to get them todebate the issues and challenges? I was ineducation for 34 years, the last 16 of themas a successful headteacher, and onlyonce have secondary headteachers everbeen brought together – although it wasn’ta consultation or debate. Rather it wasmore a talking to by the then Minister.

Are politicians and the educationalestablishment so sure of their ownrightness that they do not feel the need togenuinely listen to and follow the advice ofschool leaders? I know they will argue thatthey do. As a highly experienced andsuccessful ‘Heidie’ I can genuinely say I donot believe that. The current method ofconsultation is both superficial andcontrolled.

Additionally I would add that as wedeveloped CfE we did not put enough trustin our dynamic young staff to lead thisdevelopment but rather relied on oldermore experienced colleagues and so wegot a fancier version of the same. We arewell into the 21st century but we arecertainly not at the forefront of the use ofinformation technology in learning. Youngpeople learn on a daily/hourly basisoutside of schools using iPads etc. Theycommunicate through the same mediumoutside of schools. How many of ourschools have wifi available, or afford theopportunity to ‘bring your own device’ intoschool, or provide charging points, oraddress the IT needs of the sociallydisadvantaged, or deliver lessons using ITat its best, using an interactive white boardas an alternative to the blackboard?

To me CfE can be summed up by a quotefrom part of Spike Milligan’s autobiographywhen he was in North Africa during WW2.Along with some of his mates they werewatching native women walking to andfrom a well to get water and then carry it intall pots on their heads. One squaddie says‘You’d think their old man would buy thema suitcase to carry the water in’ andanother squaddie says ‘How would thatwork then?’. The first guy replies: ‘Listenmate, I only come up with the good ideasit’s up to them to make it work.’ This iswhere we are with CfE – schools, teachers,pupils, parents left to make it work.

What do we need to do?

Firstly give pupils, parents and teachersstability and certainty by clearly stating ‘nomore changes for three years’.

Next we need to take a step back and havethe debate as a society about what weneed and want from education in itsbroadest sense in the 21st Century andhow we will deliver it. The current modelwas designed in the Victorian era withsome changes in the 1960s withcomprehensive education and thencertification for all in the 1980s and CfE inthe 2000s. Now we need to take afundamental and visionary look.

The question is: will we have the debate,who will lead the debate and will thedebate be about school based educationor education and learning in its broadestcontext including the needs of theindividual and of society? Will the debateinclude all providers and recipients ofeducation or - as has been in the past –will it be limited in the scope of itsmembership? If we could agree theparameters then this need not take longand certainly should not take the length oftime it has to get CfE in place. Realisticallythe pace of debate which is being set onthe further devolution of powers toScotland is what we need.

Future change should be agreed andinvolve all partners. It needs to be planned,staged, progressive, resourced and built ona solid and transparent framework. Itshould be led by headteachers andpractising educationalists, by business andparents, by young people and youngteachers. As much as anything futurechange should be radical under thesurface but it should also be recognisable,coherent and understandable to all and atthe same time not be threatening or createworry and confusion. You can have realand dynamic change within a recognisable

framework. A clear set of Conditions andArrangements should be produced whichare succinct with supporting materials.Until these are there for educators to studyand adapt and add their flair to, nothingshould be implemented. The current modelis make it up as you go supported by themost overly detailed layers of ‘guidance’including Experiences and Outcomes – allof which has encouraged a tick boxapproach to curricular development andover assessment so as to ensure thatwhen inspected by HMIe everything iscovered.

To support new development we need todecentralise and devolve responsibility andresources down to delivery level. Thedevelopment of CfE has cost tens ofmillions of pounds yet virtually none of thatmoney went directly or indirectly toschools; most of it supported national andlocal authority teams and consultants. As adirect move I would suggest we do notneed 32 local authorities with 32Education Departments (stand alone orotherwise) and 32 Directors of Educationetc. This duplication needs to beaddressed and would allow significantsavings to be made and allow reinvestmentin the front line. I realise that there are anumber of amalgamated services and alsosome joint working between a fewauthorities but this does not go far enough.

Currently in the state sector devolvedschool management of resources is therein words but not in practice. Headteachersdo not control the vast majority of thebudget needed to run the school they arecharged with leading. Put the resourcesinto the front line, redeploy staff from thecentre into schools. Energise and empower

Headteachers – set them free and givethem true accountability.

Let me give you two examples ofdevelopments I think illustrate where weshould be going. When I was Headteacherof Breadalbane Academy we were a highlysuccessful school and normally sat in thetop twenty schools in Scotland for SQAattainment but this was not enough. Weadapted our curriculum to the needs of ourrural community. We offered Land BasedStudies including Gamekeeping (4000pheasants and we had our own processingunit to butcher and package the birds),Agriculture, Equestrianism, Horticulture,Fencing and Dyking. We started to developa Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship withthe support of high flying localBusinessmen/entrepreneurs so that youngpeople could start their business plan inS6 with a view to staying in theircommunity with their own businesses. Weplanned with Perth College to offer theopportunity to start your degree in S6through the UHI with the option to move onto a mainstream University or completeyour degree and stay in the area. We alsoplanned to support our community bybroadcasting radio and developing local TV.We were an integral part of our communitydelivering high quality education in aformat that suited our community.

As Headteacher of Perth Grammar School Irebuilt the school around Sport and Healthand the Expressive Arts. They became thedrivers to raise attainment andachievement for all. When we did this, thesenior school core subjects got lessteaching time but the results improved. Wealso jointly developed a ProfessionalDevelopment Award in General Insurance

at Higher level with Aviva (a major andvisionary employer in Perth) and PerthCollege which came with a guaranteedinterview scheme on successfulcompletion. We adapted the middle schoolto include a wide variety of vocationalcourses including Sport and Recreation,Hairdressing, Horticulture and Mechanicsas an option instead of French or German.However this was balanced by enhancingthe Modern Language curriculum with theintroduction of Spanish and Mandarin.Results in all subjects and behaviourimproved when these changes wereintroduced. From the junior school upwardswe introduced drama as a core andoptional subject for all. All pupils in S1 andS2 had to join at least one extra curricularclub and the vast majority sustained thisthroughout the year. As a measure ofeffectiveness all SQA results improved andover five years exclusions dropped by 62%.This was supported by pupils, staff,parents the wider community and the localauthority but was mainly done within ourown resources with the exception of extracurricular sport which we financedsignificantly through our own Sports Trust.The Charitable status that a Trust bringsgives huge added value to a school forexample it found funding for and installedwhat is the largest and technically mostvaried indoor climbing wall of any school inScotland. The pupils were proud of theirschool and believed we were the best.

All the above was achieved by not followingthe lead of others but by being creative,calculated risk takers. Unfortunately thecurrent demands of CfE and subsequentlythe endless demands for plans, data, selfauditing and self evaluation are sappingthe strength out of schools as they feed

the needs of local and nationalgovernments for facts, figures and signs ofconformity.

If we want to develop creative, innovative,happy, high achieving, confident youngpeople and professionals in school weneed to radically rethink the current model.

In conclusion I would say that I believe wehave missed an opportunity with CfE to bebold and creative. I and my generationdeveloped Standard Grade of which wewere rightly proud 30 plus years ago. Letus trust our young staff and young peopleto work with business leaders, parents,politicians and wider society to come upwith a 21st Century model for the 21stcentury. All they need is the opportunity.

The SNP Government’s policy to have a“named person” for 0-18 year olds haspushed the boundaries of the state waytoo far, argues Elizabeth Smith MSP.Elizabeth is the Scottish ConservativeSpokesman on Children and Young People.

Political philosophers are always, quiterightly, keen to argue that there is animportant distinction between politicalpower and legal power. In democracies,governments which wish to remain in officepay just as much attention to politicalpower as they do to legal power since theirtenure of office depends more on theirelectoral popularity and their ability to takethe public with them rather than on forcingthe public to do what the state tells them.

Throughout history, a substantial part ofphilosophical thinking has evolved aroundhow best to strike the right balancebetween the two conflicting principles ofindividual liberty and the authority of thestate, and around how to define thecommon good. For example, Hobbesargued that individual liberty necessarilyhad to be limited to allow additionalbenefits of state authority. Locke, on theother hand, argued the reverse; that theauthority of the state should be limited toallow individual liberty to flourish.

This debate, which also underpinned somany of the writings of the ancient Greekphilosophers, is just as relevant today. Ifthe actions of the state are directed toomuch in favour of compulsion and lawsbacked by punitive sanctions, then theexercise of personal, social and moralfreedom is inhibited – what Aristotle

described as the state’s ability to diminish“the good life”. The issue is very much at the heart of how democracies run theirgovernment and, as such, it is a majorfactor which determines what politicalparties write in their policy manifestoes.More interesting however, is the fact thatas Western democracies have becomemore liberal in their social attitudes, thephilosophical tensions about the role of thestate have grown stronger.

Herein lies a contradiction within the SNP’scurrent policy-making. They are quick to tellus that they whole-heartedly espouse aliberal democratic tradition and that theywill do much more to increase personalfreedoms by promoting greater equalityand social justice yet, over the course of itsmajority government since 2011, the SNPhave become increasingly authoritarianand paternalistic. Within SNP social policythere have been overt moves to increasethe power of the state; to centralise thepolice force, abolish the right to buy councilhouses, undermine the autonomy ofScotland’s colleges and universities andtake back private land into stateownership. In the recent Referendum, weheard threats about nationalising keyindustries so there is a strong suggestionthat SNP economic policy is going in thesame direction.

But it is the SNP’s insistence that allchildren between 0-18 should have a"Named Person" which has been the mostcontroversial and which, for many familiesin Scotland, is an example of pushing theboundaries of the state too far and whichis symptomatic of a government that does

Family values should support our young people not state interference

not trust its people.

To be fair to the SNP, the Named Personpolicy had its origins within the seriouschallenges facing some of our mostvulnerable children. Everyone knows thatthere have been a number of shockingcases across Scotland and the UK whichhave demonstrated just how bad it can befor some of our most vulnerable children.We are all repulsed by the depths ofdepravity which confront these children asthey struggle against abuse and isolationand a childhood that is permanentlyblighted by poor care and living in harmfulenvironments. It is something about whichwe must all be concerned and it was oneof the main reasons behind the Childrenand Young People's Act, which was passedat Holyrood on 27th March 2014.

It also has its origins in the fact that thereis so much incontrovertible evidence whichtells us that the early years are the mostimportant when it comes ensuring thatchildren are given the very best start in lifeand that key components of the supportare more health visitors and better, andmore flexible, provision of child care. No-one doubts either of these facts and it hasbeen clear that all political parties haveseen the need to place considerable focuson these policy areas, even if they differ inapproach.

As a result of this co-operation betweenthe political parties at Holyrood, theChildren and Young People’s Act did manygood things, especially in terms ofmeasures to improve child care, kinshipcare, support for care leavers and theprotection of rural schools. It had, however,one fundamental flaw which prevented it

from gaining final cross party support andwhich has continued to cause alarmamongst many parents. That flaw was thesinister proposal to introduce a ‘NamedPerson’ or state guardian for every childbetween 0 and 18 years old.

What is implicit in this proposal to have a"Named Person" for every child is theinsistence that the state, rather thanparents and families, has the primaryobligation to look after children. It is aninvasion of family life and it therefore tipsthe balance of individual responsibility infavour of the state rather than the family –a point very well made by Allan Massie, inhis Daily Mail column of 6th June 2014when he reminded us that it is traditionallytotalitarian regimes which, throughouthistory, have been hostile towards thefamily since they see the existence of thefamily and its values as threats to theauthority of the state.

He is right. If there are thousands ofparents across Scotland doing a thoroughlygood job of bringing up their children – andthere are – then what right does theScottish Government have to tell them thatthe state knows better? The introduction ofthe Named Person smacks of the worstform of intervention largely because itrepudiates individualism and theassociated family and it is this aspectwhich has given rise to such concernacross Scotland.

In any case, the rights of children do notstand in isolation. They should be seen inthe context of the rights of parents andfamilies and the responsibilities of thesefamilies. This holistic approach is theprinciple which already underpins most

children and young people's legislation –whether that is within Scots, UK orEuropean law – so it is little wonder thatboth the Faculty of Advocates and the LawSociety of Scotland raised concerns aboutthe new Act "diluting" the legal role ofparents. They pointed to the fact that theAct allows ministers not only to have morepowers, but that these are both ill-definedand open-ended, and they questionedwhether the Named Person part of thelegislation can ever meet the acceptedcriteria for "good law".

The No to Named Person Campaign(www.No2NP.org), which has been up andrunning for some months now, has beenhugely successful in representing thesedeep seated concerns amongst parentswho feel that they are being told that theyare not competent to look after their ownchildren. They are rightly worried that therehas been a withdrawal of trust and thatthis will alter the previously strongrelationships which have existed betweenparent and teacher, parent and healthvisitor and, most importantly, betweenparent and child. It is this matter ofundermining trust which is now so centralto this debate and which is responsible forthe legal challenge to the Named Personlegislation led by human rights QC AidanO’Neill.

But apart from all this, what on earth is thepoint of insisting that the vast majority offamilies who are coping perfectly well musthave a "Named Person" on the same basisas those families who face genuineproblems? What is the point of forcing allchildren to have a Named Person evenwhen no problem exists? It defies commonsense, particularly at a time when local

authorities are facing increasingly tightbudgets. Throughout its deliberationswithin both Holyrood’s EducationCommittee and the Finance Committee ,the Scottish Government was not able toprovide the necessary detail on how muchthe Named Person legislation would cost –particularly over the longer term - and itwas clear from the evidence provided bygroups like health boards, the teachingunions and the Royal Colleges of Nursingand Midwives that they did not believe thefinancial memorandum whichaccompanied the initial bill was, in anyway, a statement of the true cost. Thedrain on time and money and additionaltraining within local authorities and socialservices is considerable. If money needs tobe spent providing Named Persons for allchildren, then, by definition, resources arediverted away from children facing thegreatest challenges. That, surely, is notmeant to be the intention. It does not addup to good government and a responsiblestate.

Other legal experts have pointed out that bydefining a child as between 0 and18, theScottish Government has moved againstexisting legislation which defines a child asbetween 0 and 16. Does the ScottishGovernment really think this is workable?Are we really going to expect an 18-year-oldcouple who have their first child to havethree Named Persons in the family? This issurely ridiculous as it evidenced by some ofthe strongest proponents of the NamedPerson admitting that it can’t work in theseolder age-groups.

Now, there are some people who tell usthat there is nothing to worry about – thatthis policy is just a formalisation of what is

already happening and that it is just ameans of expanding the successful GIRFECproject which had its origins in HighlandCouncil. However, it is very clear that thereare large swathes of the parent body whodo not accept that. They point to the factthat there is little or no evidence thatproves that the areas of success withinHighland Council’s children and youngpeople policy, is directly a result of aNamed Person policy. Indeed, it can beeasily argued that Highland achieved bettersuccess rates without legislation andbecause the local authority’s culture of carehas meant the various departments havecollaborated so well which is, after all, themain principle which underpins GIRFEC .

At the same time, we have many parentsarguing that the Named Person part of theGIRFEC policy has been introduced by theback door and that the full details havenever been made clear, something whichthese same parents will not forget whenthey support the No2NP campaign’s legalchallenge.

Is it really acceptable that because of theundoubted failure of a small minority ofsocial workers or teachers or healthworkers to detect problems, we allow theimposition of a large bureaucracy of statemonitoring for every child between 0 and18 and that this is allowed to take placewithout the whole parent body being madefully aware of its implications?

Inherent in this, is the hugely controversialissue over data-sharing; in particular,concern about what is meant when it issaid that information should be shared if it“might be relevant” to a child’s wellbeingand “ought to be provided” as a safeguard

against any potential problems the childmight encounter. Under the scheme,Named Persons can have access to thechild’s school records, NHS files and otherconfidential documents so it is not hard tothink of scenarios where there will bepotential for conflict between parents andthe Named Person. What happens, forexample, in a situation where a young girlbecomes pregnant and both she and herparents decide they would like to keep thechild but the Named Person disagreesbecause - on account of being privy to themedical records of the girl - he or she feelsthat caring for that child would be toodifficult? What would happen in situationswhere the parents and Named Persondisagree about the child’s access to sexeducation or religious observance inschool? These likely scenarios promptedthe Oxford academic, Adrian Hilton, todescribe the Named Person policy as the“nationalisation of nurture”.

This essay began with some commentabout the ever-present tension betweenindividual liberty and the authority of thestate. It is a tension which has troubledphilosophers down the ages and it willundoubtedly trouble them in exactly thesame way in the future. If history isanything to go by, governments will neverbe able to remove that tension, but thesesame governments are defined by theextent to which their people will accept theauthority of the state. At present, we havea Scottish Government which isincreasingly willing to extend theboundaries of the state. Will the people ofScotland now start to rebel against thatmove and, in the first instance, demandthat the Named Person policy is removedfrom the statute books?

Promoted by Mark McInnes, on behalf of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, both of 67 Northumberland Street,Edinburgh EH3 6JG. Printed by Hill & hay Ltd., 58 Rogart Street, Glasgow G40 2AA.

Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, 67 Northumberland Street, Edinburgh EH3 6JG.0131 524 0030 [email protected] scottishconservatives.com

first class - scottish conservatives · have held the power to chart a bold new course for our...

Documents