The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on protecting teacher numbers and children’s learning hours at school. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement; therefore, there should be no interventions of interruptions.
I call Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak for up to 10 minutes.
14:57
I am pleased to provide a statement on our commitment to protecting teacher and school support staff numbers and the current number of learning hours for children, and on the action that we will take to deliver that.
The Government’s vision for education in Scotland remains the delivery of excellence and equity for all. These measures are critical to our aim, which is shared by local government, to raise attainment and to substantially eliminate the poverty-related attainment gap by 2026. As I reported two weeks ago, there are promising signs that the attainment gap is, once again, narrowing. However, there is no room for complacency and there remains much work to do to support education recovery and to accelerate progress in closing the attainment gap.
To be clear, I understand the difficult budgetary choices that local government faces. Such decisions are no less difficult for ministers. Time and again, we have acted to ensure that local government receives a fair settlement. We are making very difficult choices in order to support vital services, and it is essential that the funding that is allocated supports the outcomes for which it is intended.
The Government has a clear commitment to improving Scottish education. Maintaining increased teacher numbers is fundamental to that.
Before I go into detail, I place on record my thanks to our colleagues in local government for their dedication to the delivery of a first-class education for our children and young people. For example, we remain close to record levels of teacher numbers, and our pupil teacher ratio remains historically low, at 13.2. Last year, we witnessed the biggest single-year decrease in the attainment gap in primary numeracy and literacy levels since records began, in 2016-17. In addition, the 2022 exam results show an increase in pass rates for national 5s, highers and advanced highers to record levels for any exam year since the current qualifications were introduced, while the gap between attainment levels in the least and most deprived areas has narrowed from the 2019 level.
To build on that, we have agreed with local government ambitious stretch aims, which set out each council’s ambitions for its learners. For both overall attainment and the closing of the poverty-related attainment gap in literacy and numeracy in primary schools, the collective stretch aims of local authorities are an improvement of 6 to 7 percentage points. If that were achieved, it would amount to the biggest two-year improvement that has been recorded since the introduction of the challenge.
As we support this generation to recover from the disruption that the pandemic has caused to its education, I am grateful for those sustained efforts, and I recognise the importance of strong partnership working between local government, central Government and Education Scotland to achieve our ambitions.
I wish also to address the current pay dispute and the disruption that is being experienced by pupils, parents, carers and teachers across Scotland, and to provide reassurance as to my commitment to work with local government and teaching unions alike to reach a fair, sustainable settlement that is acceptable to all sides.
I pay tribute to the dedication, commitment and hard work of our teachers and school support staff, and all those who work alongside them. Delivering positive outcomes, including raising attainment and closing the attainment gap, is a shared endeavour in which we are making positive progress. A key element of continuing that progress is to ensure that there is no reduction in the fundamentals of education delivery, including the number of teachers or support staff and the amount of time that children spend on learning in schools. My immediate concern is the threat that the numbers of teachers and support staff may start to fall in the next financial year as a result of council budget decisions, and I wish to avoid such an outcome.
Local authorities have historically received funding every year to maintain the pupil teacher ratio and teacher numbers and to provide places on the teacher induction scheme for all probationers who need one. We also provide a further £145.5 million each financial year to fund teacher numbers and pupil support staff. That combined funding was made available to, and agreed with, local authorities to deliver on three specific aims: maintaining teacher numbers at their current levels in the year ahead; maintaining the number of school support staff at their current levels in the year ahead; and continuing to ensure that there are places available on the teacher induction scheme for probationer teachers who need them.
In the year ahead, where those criteria are not met by a local authority, we will withhold or recoup funding that has been given to local authorities for those purposes. I know that that decision may not be welcomed by local government, but I have a clear commitment to improve Scottish education, on which we are making good progress, and I am firmly of the view that we will not do that by having fewer teachers or support staff, or having pupils spend less time in school.
It is vital that we can maintain increased teacher numbers in the context of the difficult budgetary choices that are currently faced by both local government and the Scottish Government, while we work towards the delivery of our commitment to increase teacher numbers by 3,500 by the end of the current session of Parliament. As I said, I understand the financial pressures that local authorities are facing, and I acknowledge that councils are wrestling with these decisions.
Councils have a range of responsibilities, and inflationary impacts mean, understandably, that difficult choices have to be made. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to delivering fairness in the budget settlement for next year, and a new deal for local government in the longer term. Ministers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leadership continue to discuss how our legitimate and important aim of maintaining teacher numbers can be delivered while respecting local councils’ wider priorities, which we share. Those discussions will continue as we finalise next year’s budget and beyond.
The current pupil week of around 25 hours for primary pupils and 27.5 hours for secondary pupils is well established. It is the backbone of our education provision and benefits all our children and young people. School not only provides the vital learning that our children and young people need in order to succeed; it is also a safe and secure place that nurtures them. A reduction in the school week, as it has been reported in recent weeks some authorities are considering, would be expected to materially reduce pupil attainment and wellbeing.
That is why I will commence the provision in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 that will enable Scottish ministers to set the minimum number of learning hours in a school year. Following thorough consultation, I will then bring forward regulations that will specify the minimum number of learning hours per annum and effectively provide a statutory basis for the pupil week.
There is currently some limited variation in delivery across Scotland, which has arisen for a range of reasons. For example, variation may relate to rural transport requirements; to meeting the needs of our youngest pupils; or to ensuring that older pupils can access flexible options as part of their senior phase. The regulation-making power anticipates that there would need to be flexibility where pupils’ wellbeing requires it, and where, for example, matters are outwith the control of the education authority or schools. That variation, and the need for flexibility, would be fully explored in a consultation and considered before regulations are laid. Those regulations will be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure.
I am committed to ensuring that every child and young person in Scotland has the best opportunities through their education. I am determined that our efforts to accelerate progress on tackling the poverty-related attainment gap will continue. The measures that I have outlined today demonstrate the Government’s unyielding commitment to closing the attainment gap and making Scotland the best place in the world in which to grow up. I will be writing to COSLA today, and to each individual council in the coming days, to set out the details on protecting teacher and support staff numbers, and the next steps on learning hours.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that have been raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
This announcement destroys what little good faith remains between councils and the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary is threatening councils with sanctions and cutting their budgets even further for failing to deliver policies for which she has failed to provide funding. There has been a decade of underfunding. It is hardly surprising that the Educational Institute of Scotland has announced an escalation of strike action—brought about by the cabinet secretary’s inaction—including targeting the constituencies of Nicola Sturgeon and Shirley-Anne Somerville.
The announcement will bring about deep cuts: swimming classes will end, youth clubs and playgroups will close, rural nurseries will close, school cleaning will be reduced, school crossing patrols will end, family support will be cut, school trips will be cancelled, libraries will be closed and services for children from playparks to school meals will get worse. The cabinet secretary is responsible for making our country a poorer place to be a child and a young person. She will not fight for them—all the evidence tells us that, in the Cabinet, she does not fight for the interests of children and young people.
Can the cabinet secretary honestly say that her announcement will have a positive impact on children in Scotland?
In the context of the most challenging budget settlement since devolution, we have provided £13.2 billion in the local government settlement, which is an increase of £570 million, which represents a real-terms increase to local government. This probably will not be the last time that I say this, but if Mr Kerr is suggesting that more money should be given to local government, then, given that we are in the middle of the budget process, he or his party must come to us with a reasoned and costed way to do that—otherwise, it is just bluster in the chamber and of no benefit to children and young people.
I point to the work that is being done in the wider Scottish Government to protect children and young people: the Scottish child payment. We have put that in place because of the ineptitude and deliberate policies of the UK Government that target children and young people while failing to alleviate child poverty. We will tackle that at the same time as protecting teacher numbers and support staff.
We have blind panic in the Government and chaos in council chambers. Labour has been warning the Scottish Government about teacher numbers for months. There was no mention of it in the red lines in Mr Swinney’s budget circular. Now, with just days before budgets are set, we have fines instead of finance and an immediate ring fencing of more than one third of local authorities’ budgets. Chief executives are telling councillors that it is simply not possible to redraw the budgets at this stage.
The statement is woeful. It offers zero clarity to parents, pupils, teachers and taxpayers. What is the date for the baseline of teacher numbers in councils? Why is there no clarity on when regulations will be in place? When will parents know whether the school week is going to change? Why did it take until the very last minute for the cabinet secretary to wake up to the problem?
We have discussed with COSLA several times our concern that the £145.5 million that was put into the budget last year would not provide the numbers. Unfortunately, we were told that it was too difficult and costly to provide national Government with that information. When the teacher census came out, that situation was immediately apparent to us, action was taken and discussions continued from then.
That was out in September.
It was published in December. If Michael Marra wants another bite of the cherry because he did not ask a suitable question in the first place—
That would be a matter for the Presiding Officer.
The date that we will look at will be the date of the teacher census, because those are the official statistics. I am more than happy to discuss other ways to do that with COSLA.
I was very clear about the school week in my opening statement. The Government will move forward quickly with consultation. Local authorities will be in no doubts about the process that we will go through and the fact that we will protect the school week as it stands. I expect councils to pay close attention to the fact that those regulations will be coming into force in due course.
We are told that councils are signed up to the shared agenda of addressing the poverty-related attainment gap. Indeed, additional moneys have been made available via the proposed Scottish Government budget to support all local authorities in that Scotland-wide mission. Can the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government assesses the impact that reducing the school week and teacher numbers would have on those endeavours? I presume that it would risk sending the progress that has been made into reverse.
It is of great concern that any reduction in teacher numbers, support staff or the school week would have an impact on our ability to tackle the attainment gap. As I have said—but I will say it once again—our ambition is to substantially eliminate the poverty-related attainment gap by 2026. There is no evidence to suggest that reducing teacher numbers, pupil support staff or the time that children are in school would be anything but to the detriment of that policy. That is exactly why we have provided councils with £145.5 million on that basis.
Last week, the cabinet secretary set out four red lines to councils: teacher numbers, the length of the school week, pupil support assistance, and probationary teachers. I hate to break it to the cabinet secretary, but councils have already made savings in those areas in previous years, and some have no choice but to look at making further savings to balance the books. As the cabinet secretary is keen to set red lines in education, perhaps she could outline what other savings councils should make in order to balance their budgets in the face of Scottish National Party cuts.
We have previously seen an increase in teacher numbers, thanks in great part to the investment that the Scottish Government has made in them. Indeed, we have recently seen increases in the number of pupil support assistants. It is very important that we recognise and appreciate that councils have difficult decisions to make—we all do, as we set these budgets. I simply say to Meghan Gallacher and others that, where we have a joint agreement—as we did on the issues of teacher numbers and pupil support staff numbers—and where money has been allocated on that basis, I do not think it surprising that the Scottish Government will then follow up to ensure that that is delivered. That is why the money was put in, and there was a shared expectation and understanding that that would happen. I do not think it surprising that we will continue to ensure that policy decisions are taken to support that approach.
The cabinet secretary has set out that, this year, additional funding is being provided that it was agreed with local authorities would be used to recruit teachers and teaching assistants. However, the picture will vary dramatically across the country. What analysis has the Scottish Government carried out of the extent to which the funding has been used for its intended purpose? Members will be watching carefully what happens in their local areas.
The £145.5 million of funding was baselined to the local government settlement for 2022-23, therefore monitoring did not take place specifically on that. However, we did keep a close eye on the summary statistics for schools that were published in December, from the teacher census that took place earlier in the year. Those statistics are made available to ensure that we see an improved picture in the number of teachers. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, that did not happen. As Mr Doris would expect, the Scottish Government has therefore taken further action, because any further reduction would be wholly unacceptable.
The statement is challenging because of its lack of detail. The cabinet secretary has just said that the £145.5 million of funding was not monitored. Was that because it was not, in fact, agreed with COSLA how it would be monitored? Also, is there is a definition of school support staff, or are we now talking about pupil support staff? What date will the baseline be taken from? A significant number of questions arise, but I simply ask whether Glasgow will be allowed to cut the school week.
We have committed to ensuring that the school week is maintained across Scotland. When it comes measuring the number of teachers, only one level of national statistics looks at that, which is the teacher census. As I said, we asked COSLA to work with us in-year to provide further reassurance, but that was not possible. If COSLA is now saying that a different way of doing that is possible, my door is open to those discussions. COSLA has since suggested that there are more teachers in post than the census shows, but it does not say whether, or reassure us that, that is a net position. It is important that we have a shared understanding of those numbers, which is why the teacher census national statistics are the most sensible way to do that. The same is applicable to pupil support assistants, although they are not part of the teacher census. They are included in different statistics. We are still trying, at this late point, to work with COSLA, even if it does not agree with my decision to move forward with the protection of teacher and pupil support staff numbers, to see whether we can get some agreement on how those figures can be monitored and maintained during the year.
Despite the damaging effect of inflation on the Scottish budget and the complete inaction from the Tories at Westminster, can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government is prioritising education in the 2023-24 budget?
As I said, we have protected councils in the most challenging budget settlement since devolution. There is provision of £13.2 billion in the local government settlement, which is a real-terms increase of 1.3 per cent since the Budget (Scotland) Act 2022. We can now see that 2021, which is the last year for which we have statistics, was the sixth year in a row in which education gross revenue expenditure saw a real-terms increase. Those are two demonstrations of how we are attempting, in the most difficult of circumstances, to provide a fair settlement for local government and continue our investment in education.
She makes out that councils are desperate to cut teacher numbers because they want to damage our schools, but the reality is that her Government has cut councils’ funding, which has forced them, as she admits, to make incredibly difficult choices. She lectures us every single day that we have to come up with identified funds to fund our spending asks. Where is she doing the same for local government? Will she spell out what they should cut? If not, will she withdraw this indictment?
Before I ask the cabinet secretary to respond, I remind members that a bit of politesse does not go wrong. A subsequent referral to the pronoun might be okay, but perhaps initially one could refer to “the cabinet secretary”. That would perhaps be a wee bit more polite.
I presume that “she” means me, Presiding Officer. I will work on that basis.
It is important that I recognise—I did so in my statement—that councils have difficult decisions to make. I appreciate that we all have difficult decisions as we set our budgets. I will make my previous point again for Mr Rennie: where we have a joint agreement on how money should be spent, I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Scottish Government follows up to ensure that it is delivered. I appreciate that local government will have difficult decisions to make in areas where we do not have a joint agreement on how money should be spent and that that will be a difficult process for councils. However, where we have a shared understanding and a shared agenda, it is not surprising that the Scottish Government will follow up to ensure that the policy is delivered.
The cabinet secretary emphasised her commitment to working in partnership with local government. Could she give more detail as to how they will work in partnership to reduce the poverty-related attainment gap?
A great deal of work is going on in conjunction with local government on the poverty-related attainment gap, and that is a shared mission of national and local government. I point to the Scottish attainment challenge funding as an example of that. Another example is the important work that has been developed with local authorities, Education Scotland and national government on the stretch aims. We worked well together on that new and innovative partnership approach, and I look forward to continuing and building on that next year.
Following on from Bob Doris’s line of questioning, I am struggling to reconcile the stated purpose of the £145 million that was provided this year with the results of the school staff census that the cabinet secretary outlines and COSLA’s statement in the briefing that it sent to MSPs that that money was spent on school staff. I cannot see how that happened when the number of school staff fell. What correspondence has the cabinet secretary had on the matter, and what explanation has COSLA provided on those two different positions being reconcilable?
I note that the COSLA briefing that came out just before my statement seemed to suggest that the money has been spent on teacher support staff and pay. There was an agreement to ensure that that money was spent on teachers and support staff. There is additional funding going into the historical pay settlements that have been made.
As I said, the COSLA briefing came out just before my statement. I would be more than happy to follow that up. I will, of course, do so with COSLA and ensure that local government provides further details to us about how that money has been spent, or vice versa. We should continue that dialogue.
Teacher recruitment and retention is an issue in many rural areas across Scotland. Will the Scottish Government provide an update on how it will encourage teachers to work in areas in which there are difficulties in recruiting teachers?
Rona Mackay has raised a really important point. Recruitment and retention are difficult, particularly in some of our rural areas, and that can lead to a real challenge in maintaining teacher numbers at a particular level.
Local authorities are, of course, responsible for the recruitment, retention and deployment of teachers. There are flexibilities in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers for pay arrangements, for example, so a local authority can provide an increase in teachers’ salaries if it is facing recruitment challenges. However, I recognise that there is also an important role for the Scottish Government in working with our local authorities to see whether anything more can be done on the issue. We have working groups that look at recruitment and retention, and we will come back to that particular issue this year.
Once again, here we are, debating a statement with no substance and no solutions. Fewer pupils in primary schools are achieving the expected curriculum for excellence levels in literacy, reading, writing, listening, talking and numeracy. The announcement will lead only to the other parts of the education budget being cut. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that will have a negative impact on attainment? If not, what impact does she expect the cuts to have?
I go back to the point that we have seen an increase in attainment levels in numeracy and literacy at primary levels. That is a real testament to the hard work of our teachers and support staff to recover from the pandemic.
I ask Pam Gosal once again: if she does not like the approach and thinks that more money should be going to local government, where in the budget will that come from? The budget has already been set out, and there is an opportunity. We are in the middle of the budget process. Once again, a member of the Conservative Party has demanded that more money be spent with absolutely no detail and no constructive offer to work with the Government on how that could be done.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business, should the front-bench teams wish to change position.
Previous
Levelling Up Fund