Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, June 13, 2024

Official Report 1148KB pdf

---

Kindergarten Stage

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12369, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, on fostering a discussion on a kindergarten stage in Scotland.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the body of international evidence on the reported benefits of play-based early years education; believes that active, social play is a natural learning drive that helps develop physical fitness, social skills, cognitive capacities and personal qualities; understands that Scotland and the rest of the UK are outliers in Europe in starting formal education at four or five years of age; considers that, since the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) comparisons began, countries with later school starting ages have performed better than those with earlier starts; understands that the UN defines early childhood as being from birth to eight years of age, and that Scottish research has established that there are significant differences in children’s levels of development at age five; commends the work of organisations such as Upstart Scotland in promoting the needs of children in early years education based on relationship-centred, child-led, play-based environments, with a greater focus on outdoor learning; notes the belief that a universal play-based kindergarten stage, with a raised formal school starting age, could contribute to closing the attainment gap and be a significant anti-poverty measure, and that it would help provide a true level playing field for all of Scotland’s children, including those in the Coatbridge and Chryston constituency, giving every child time to develop the skills and capacities that underpin educational success, improving long-term outcomes and giving every child the best start in life, and further notes the belief that there is a need for a national conversation on early years education to consider a later school starting age preceded by a relationship-centred, play-based kindergarten stage to support optimal development during early childhood and ensure secure foundations, and that such a conversation should be open to all who wish to contribute, including early years practitioners, parents, teachers, academics and children, as well as policy makers.

12:51  

First, I thank all members who have supported my motion, which calls for a discussion on a kindergarten stage in Scotland. I pay particular thanks to my colleague Kaukab Stewart for initially leading the discussion on the topic prior to her promotion to Government.

The tendency for children to start formal education at four or five years old means that Scotland—and indeed the United Kingdom, for that matter—is an outlier in Europe. Our tradition of starting school at that age was enshrined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1872. That piece of legislation was groundbreaking for ensuring that every child got an education. However, since then, there has been a century and a half of research and improved understanding of child psychology and development, and we have an archaic mindset. Looking across Europe, we see that delaying starting academic studies is becoming more widespread, with many countries opting for their children to start school at six or even seven years old.

Change is possible. In Scotland today, the deferment of a four-year-old child is now the decision of the parent or legal guardian, thanks to the tireless work of the Give Them Time campaign. Its campaign for a further year of nursery funding for all children who defer their primary 1 start in Scotland was a resounding success, and it reflects the change in attitudes on school starting ages that we are seeing in Scotland today. I put on record my thanks to all those involved in that campaign. I know that they support the kindergarten model, too.

I echo everything that Fulton MacGregor has just said. Does he agree with me that Diane Delaney is an absolute trailblazer when it comes to campaigning and highlighting those issues?

I completely agree with the member: Diane Delaney, who is a constituent of both hers and mine, is certainly that.

At its most basic level, a kindergarten stage is a stage whereby the emphasis of a child’s education is more on opportunities for children to play. It is a way for children to learn through enjoyable experiences rather than formal teaching. It is underpinned by the development of social and communication skills, teacher-led opportunities for art, drama, music, science or maths investigations and listening to stories.

The benefits of such a stage are self-evident. Physically, it promotes physical self-confidence and bodily control. Mentally, it allows children’s creativity to flourish, as well as helping to develop self-control and problem solving. Socially, it provides a perfect opportunity for children to progress their interpersonal skills, such as communication, empathy and teamwork. Cognitively, play-based learning can improve a child’s innate understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts.

A kindergarten stage would not be free time for the children to do as they please; rather, it would be an educational approach that supports not just their academic development but their all-round physical, emotional, social and cognitive development.

Another key component of that play-based approach is access to the outdoors and increased contact with the natural world. Today, fewer of our children spend time outdoors. It is no surprise that they often stay inside instead and are more likely to be watching television or engaging with our ever-increasing digital world. Anybody who is a parent—as I am—knows exactly what that looks like. With outdoor play being such an important part of kindergartens globally, a kindergarten stage could give all Scottish children time and space to develop the habits of outdoor play, which promote mental and physical health and wellbeing.

For those who fear that focusing on those aspects will inhibit academic achievement, a large body of research has found the opposite to be the case. In fact, promoting physical, emotional, social and cognitive development has been shown to promote and complement academic achievement. In essence, a kindergarten stage, rather than throwing children in at the deep end when they are just four or five years old, can give children the tools to cope with the rigours of academic stresses.

I have spoken a lot about the hypothetical benefits, but I will present some facts. It might be a surprise to some to learn that, ever since the programme for international student assessment—PISA—comparisons began, countries with an early school starting age have not performed as well as those in which formal education starts later. In 66 per cent of countries worldwide, children start school at age six; in 22 per cent, they start at age seven; and in only 12 per cent do they start at age four or five. Last year, the best-performing countries were China, Singapore, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Taiwan, Finland, Poland and Ireland. Four of those—China, Estonia, Finland and Poland—have a school starting age of seven. In the rest, children start school at six. None starts them at five.

UNICEF surveys of children’s wellbeing have continually shown a correlation between countries with later school starting ages and improvements in children’s wellbeing.

In the campaign to foster a discussion on a kindergarten stage in Scotland, particular credit must lie with Upstart Scotland, which has representatives joining us in the gallery this afternoon—I am not sure whether they are in yet. Upstart Scotland has made it its mission to promote and advocate for a kindergarten stage to be introduced in Scotland. Its website is full of invaluable information, academic sources and holistic discourse that support the advancement of that play-based stage being considered in Scotland. I think that Upstart Scotland representatives are coming into the gallery now.

The conversation about the topic is growing. Last month, I hosted a round-table meeting that brought together Scottish education stakeholders and a group of Norwegian kindergarten practitioners. That meeting concentrated on a discussion about the different education systems of Norway and Scotland, with a particular focus on the Norwegian kindergarten system. Those Norwegian kindergarten staff work in a small private kindergarten with 20 children. Their focus areas were farming, food production and outdoor living, as well as other areas of learning. It was eye opening to learn how beneficial that opportunity is for the Norwegian children, especially in showing how that stage empowers children in so many ways at such an early age.

Most strikingly perhaps is the evidence that a later formal school setting can help to close the attainment gap. We know that a key goal of the Scottish Government is to close the poverty-related attainment gap. It would be presumptuous to assume that changing educational policy alone could close that gap, but a play-based stage for all across Scotland has the power to level the playing field and provide children from impoverished backgrounds with the similar experiences and support that those in more advantaged circumstances are provided with.

To put it bluntly, when children are expected to make the transition from a nursery setting to a formal school environment with an emphasis on literacy and numeracy at a time when they are only halfway through their early years, disadvantaged children are put at an even further disadvantage as they must catch up in the areas of problem solving and language development.

I know that some schools take a play-based approach in primary 1—the minister might come to that. For example, the school that my children go to does that now. It did not do that for my oldest child, but it does for my middle child. The point is that the approach is not consistent enough even within local authority areas, never mind across the country.

There would, of course, be challenges in adopting the approach. Our current system of early years learning and our nursery sector would have to be revisited. There would be the obvious question of how we would deliver the additional training required for new and existing early years staff. There have been encouraging developments on that with Play Scotland’s work with the Scottish Qualifications Authority on a play pedagogy qualification, which has just been recognised with accredited status. Any national discussion must include an assessment of training needs and the identification of where training will come from and who will deliver it, along with a costed programme for implementation.

Likewise, our current mix of local authority provision, private, voluntary and independent childcare and the primary 1 and 2 years would have to be co-ordinated to deliver the kindergarten stage, which would require to be financed. I do not deny that that will be a challenge, but I firmly believe that it is one well worth taking on. I do not have the time today to provide a forensic examination of the costs, but this is only the beginning of a discussion.

Scotland is still set in its Victorian approach to formal learning. Although the discussion is at an early stage, we must seriously consider the range of benefits that introducing a kindergarten stage could bring to our children. I can understand why some may have reservations, but that is not a new idea. Countries that have introduced such a stage have seen hugely improved and well-rounded development for their children. I will continue advocating on the topic and encourage all parties to dedicate time to researching the potential value of having kindergartens in Scotland.

I again thank Upstart Scotland and the numerous other stakeholders that have diligently and convincingly set out the arguments to modernise the Scottish education system and to bring us into line with our European neighbours.

I will close with an abridged quote from Sue Palmer, Upstart’s honorary president:

“No child should be in school at the age of five ... The poverty-related attainment gap is at root a developmental issue. By starting formal teaching too soon, we consolidate this gap. Too-early introduction to formal learning generates anxiety which can affect one's mental health for life.”

Mr MacGregor, I have been very generous, but you are now at almost 10 minutes. Please complete your speech.

I will leave it there, Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Mr MacGregor. My clock is at nine minutes and 52 seconds. The chamber one was not switched on, in error.

We now move to the open debate. I urge members to stick to their allotted time of up to four minutes.

13:01  

I am pleased to speak in the debate and I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing it to the chamber. I am particularly keen to see a wider debate about whether to move to a kindergarten system and stage in Scotland, delaying the commencement of formal education to perhaps six or even seven.

As the motion says, such an approach is not uncommon internationally, with countries taking that approach often having higher levels of attainment than produced by our UK system. I can see the advantage in having an expanded and structured play-based system in Scotland. Fulton MacGregor suggests that there would be benefits for physical fitness, social skills and cognitive capacity more generally, which would put in place the building blocks for longer-term learning and enhancing children’s personal qualities.

As anyone would do when looking at changes to the school system, I tend to think of my own family. My son could have gone to school at four but went at five years old, when he was certainly more than ready to go to school. He went to a superb nursery, but he was ready to move on, so the question we must ask ourselves is what children move on to.

There are play-based activities in primary 1 and onwards anyway, so perhaps those could be expanded and a hybrid system could be introduced to the early years of primary school, instead of expanding the early years sector. That might be a possibility. That is my way of saying that I am willing to be convinced about having a kindergarten stage, which is what our conversation is all about.

I want to know about the interaction between core literacy and numeracy skills and how they will be enhanced at that early stage as part of active play and structured learning in a delivery model that is different to the current one. Interestingly, I was told at a recent parents night that there will be a more structured and traditional approach to learning for my son when he enters primary 4 in mid-August. We can already see that schools and local authorities are seeking to innovate from primary 1 to primary 3 and will continue doing so.

I remember, when my son was in primary 1, that parents, including us, asked why the kids did not have pens or pencils in their hands and were not doing a lot of writing. It was explained to us that working with young people’s emotions, interpersonal skills, self-worth and dignity is vitally important and is a really good foundation for later life and, importantly, for learning. That is my way of saying that some of what Fulton McGregor wants—maybe just a wee bit—might be starting to evolve naturally in the innovation that is happening in primary schools now and that I am willing to be convinced about a more dramatic shift.

It is a fascinating idea. I think that we would have to build a lot of faith with many parents, who would be saying in response, just as I would be, “Where is my kid’s jotter? Where is their pencil? Where is their homework?” and all those kinds of things that we naturally come to expect. If we are developing and innovating, we have to take parents and young people with us; it is vitally important to have the conversation. I have a wee girl who is three, and as a dad, as much as an MSP, I am interested to know what that would look like for me and my family, as well as for all the families that I am proud to represent in Maryhill and Springburn.

Given the time constraints, I will leave it there. I thank Fulton MacGregor for securing the debate.

13:05  

I thank Fulton MacGregor for lodging the motion for debate in the chamber and for continuing the work of Kaukab Stewart. I will quickly mention my respect for the inclusion of his constituency, Coatbridge and Chryston, in the motion. I will be a little bit open now. My gran was born and raised in Gartsherrie, along with seven brothers and sisters. After working with the Salvation Army in London, she returned—I hope that Mr MacGregor will forgive the slight diversion—to a neighbouring constituency in Garrowhill. My great-grandfather was the leader of the Gartsherrie silver band, although I was not old enough to hear him play, and my dad went to Coatbridge high school. I have an awful lot of fondness for the area that Mr MacGregor represents. However, I digress.

The motion is about fostering a discussion on a kindergarten stage in Scotland, and I look forward to discussing how that could be done and what the model and the implications of it would be, whether those are unintended or otherwise. I commend Upstart Scotland and other organisations for the work that they do to highlight the importance of an early years education that is based on creative play and social connection. When we think about it, that is not a surprising idea: when I started working at the Parliament a couple of years ago, I was not used to the phone that I was given, so I played with it for a while until I understood its functions. We are more likely to understand how things work by doing and trying, than by sitting and reading a manual. That is human nature.

How our brain functions in formative years should inform early years childcare as well as our educational and societal processes. The Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University noted that

“When children have opportunities to develop executive function and self-regulation skills, individuals and society experience lifelong benefits. These skills are crucial for learning and development. They also enable positive behaviour and allow us to make healthy choices”.

It went on to say:

“Providing the support that children need to build these skills at home, in early care and education programs, and in other settings they experience regularly is one of society’s most important responsibilities. Growth-promoting environments provide children with ‘scaffolding’ that helps them practice necessary skills before they must perform them alone.”

Understanding the process for developing cognitive function is imperative, as it has many bearings on the issues in society that we are trying to address. Encompassing that in our early years education system will support all children, regardless of their background.

If we are all of one mind—and so far, I think that we are—and we proceed with advancing a discussion about the kindergarten model for Scotland, it is essential that we do not minimise the options that we research right out of the gate. The Nordic models are regularly highlighted in discussions. Indeed, Upstart Scotland focused on the Finnish model and a recent report from Parenting across Scotland pushes a Swedish one. It may be the case that those models fit in well with Scottish anthropology, but we should not presume that a Singaporean model or a Canadian model would not work in Scotland. Upstart Scotland highlighted that very point on its website. Mr MacGregor has already referred to it, by noting that, in 2023, the best performing countries were, in descending order: China, Singapore, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Taiwan, Finland, Poland and Ireland. China, Estonia, Finland and Poland have a school starting age of seven, and the rest have a school starting age of six.

In conclusion, we should fully embrace the opportunity, but it is not the time to limit the scope of the discussion: we need to look around the world rather than just across the water.

13:09  

It is a pleasure to take part in what is perhaps one of the more fascinating members’ business debates. Along with others, I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing it to the chamber.

There is an interesting discussion over a pedagogy, a fixed asset—our current schooling system—and the needs of our individual children. A lot of parents will echo Bob Doris’s comment that his child was ready to start school. Similarly, there are parents who recognise that their child is not ready to start school, and there is the option to extend that nursery year, as we have discussed.

This point is for Martin Whitfield as well as for Bob Doris. Does he accept that it is not just about whether a child is ready for school? Both my children who have gone to school so far were “ready” at five. It is about whether, if we were to change the system altogether so that children do not go to school at five, that would be better for society as a whole. That is the point that has been made by all the countries where the school age is already higher than five.

I am very grateful for that intervention, which speaks to the heart of what I am going to talk about. The way to look at this is to look at the young people themselves—from babies and young children—all the way through.

Intellectually, we can identify that initial movement of a baby just thrashing around on a mat as unoccupied play. Then there is the sort of solitary play in which a child does not want to be with anyone else, except perhaps their mother or father. Then there is spectator play, in which they observe other children playing. Then there is parallel play, in which they sit down—often in a sandpit, with their hands in—and play by themselves but next to others. Then there is associative play, in which they want to start involving others. Finally, there is co-operative play, which is very much at the foundation of play pedagogy and what organisations talk about. The ability not to argue with the child next to them because they have taken a piece of Lego, the ability to solve a problem because they want something on the other side of the table that they cannot reach, and the ability to be helped up by one of their young comrades when they fall over a root in the forest are all the very soft but essential skills that are required.

That sits at the heart of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in articles 31 and 29. I will spend the short time that I have on that in particular. Article 29 talks about education being

“directed to ... The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential”.

How we support that approach—how we scaffold that and provide the environment to achieve it—is not fixed by adults’ decisions that “at this age, you do this, and at that age you do that.” It is about understanding the flexible needs.

Mention has been made of existing schools in which play, particularly in P1 and P2, is such an important element. However, it has taken many years to move what is at the heart of the curriculum for excellence about the use of play into the classrooms—if I can use that phrase. I visit schools and watch P1s in the most wonderful outdoor play areas. I talked about fixed assets and mention has been made of training. We have wonderful early years workers, but of course they need support and training. It is also about the facilities and experiences that our young people and children have the opportunity to be in. It is right to mention Charlotte Bowes and #Play4P1, because the network of support that is there for practitioners is phenomenal.

I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. To open the discussion is very important, but just to sit with a formulaic idea of replacing the start of school at four or five with something else is to miss the opportunity to have a transitional experience for young people so that they learn through play not just up to eight but into adulthood, and are ready to take the next steps, supported by the communities around them.

13:14  

As colleagues have done, I congratulate Fulton MacGregor on securing the debate, and I thank Upstart Scotland, Give Them Time and everyone else who has long campaigned in this space.

The Scottish Greens were proud to propose a kindergarten stage in our manifesto for the most recent election to this Parliament. Specifically, we proposed a kindergarten stage between the ages of three and six, and formal primary school starting at seven, which would bring Scotland into line with Finland and a number of other high-performing nations that Roz McCall mentioned a moment ago.

I recognise that other members would prefer a kindergarten for ages three to five and school starting at six. It is important to tease out that detail but, at this stage, the priority is on the agreement in principle to move forward with the conversation, because a consensus is emerging.

Why should we raise the starting age for formal primary school? We should start by recognising that the status quo in Scotland and across the UK is not correct just because that is how it has always been—as Fulton MacGregor mentioned—since the Victorian era. We are an international outlier in putting four-and-a-half-year-olds into formal schooling.

I will start by addressing one of the myths about the proposals. Those of us who advocate for a kindergarten stage are not proposing that we delay a child’s education. We believe that that education would be better if we delayed the start of formal primary school and established a kindergarten stage.

A couple of years ago, I commissioned Dr Kylie Bradfield and Professor Mark Priestley to summarise the evidence for and against kindergarten and raising the primary school starting age. The arguments for the status quo—the very early school starting age in the UK—were rarely based on educational benefits.

Two primary benefits are usually cited for what we currently have. The first is child protection because, for many vulnerable children, school is the safest place for them to be. However, kindergarten would of course be an equally safe place.

The second benefit is an economic argument that children who start school earlier generally enter the workforce earlier and, therefore, work for longer before they retire. However, I think that that is a bit of a soulless argument, because we are more than units of labour.

When young people start school at a later age, there is clear evidence of better educational attainment throughout their time in school. In fact, Ashlesha Datar’s 2006 study found a bigger, long-term educational attainment benefit for vulnerable and at-risk children who started later rather than earlier. Another significant advantage is that a number of studies have found mental health benefits—by the time that they reach their late teens—for young people who start formal schooling at a later rather than younger age and have the kindergarten experience first.

Much of that comes back to the simple concept of joy. Children should enjoy learning and enjoy their time at nursery, kindergarten and school. Play-based learning at a kindergarten stage means that, for many children, their first experience of education is a joyful one—not the jarring one that a number of us experienced as we moved from nursery into a more formal primary school setting.

That is why the Scottish Greens manifesto proposes that three-to-six kindergarten stage. We want children to be happy and to enjoy learning. We want education policy to be evidence based. I absolutely agree with Roz McCall that we need to look globally at the substantial evidence base that is out there.

In closing, I pay credit, as Martin Whitfield did, to the teachers in schools who are already delivering play-based learning, particularly in primary 1 but, in many cases, up to primary 3. Practice has already shifted in our schools, but our system is holding us back from fully realising the benefits of that.

I urge the Scottish Government to take that conversation forward with the experts—the unions that represent teachers and early years staff, councils and, of course, parents and carers. Much like exam reform at the other end of the formal school experience, it is time to leave behind the Victorian-era constraints that we still have on our education system, and move to a kindergarten stage where we can give children the joyful first experience of education that they deserve. [Applause.]

Our guests in the gallery are very welcome and I am glad that you made it for part of the debate, but we do not invite gallery guests to clap during our proceedings. I am sure that, now that you know, you will heed that.

13:19  

I was not intending to say anything in this debate, but members have made very thought-provoking contributions. I have to say that I am a stickler when it comes to this issue and will talk about improving the lives of children and young people at every given opportunity.

This week, I received in my inbox a fascinating manifesto pledge by the campaign group 2020 Together entitled “It’s all about the children”. It had a launch last week; unfortunately, I was unable to attend, due to other commitments, but I think that it hits home in showing the importance of the early years to a child’s development.

Back in 2016, the Scottish Government promised to provide 1,140 hours of free childcare to children from the ages of three to five, which is exactly the age range that we are talking about today as we look at how we advance the learning experience of children and young people from a really early age. I do think that we need to look at what we have right now before we look at what we can do in the future, because we need those structures to be in place if this sort of scheme is to work. Indeed, Fulton MacGregor touched on that in this speech. The early years offering that we have just now will need to be relooked at, should we embark on this huge challenge, but I do think that it is a challenge worth embarking on.

The manifesto that I mentioned contains some really important elements, and I would appreciate it if the minister and I could discuss it, perhaps not today, but at some point in the future. It comes from a group of active campaigners in my region who want to make sure that the experience for children at the early stages of their lives is the best that it possibly can be. Although the early years offering just now has been positive for local authorities, it has certainly not been as positive for the private, voluntary and independent sector. Although the nurseries in that sector provide the same level of care for children, and although their staff have the same qualifications as those in local authority settings, the pay disparity between the two settings is stark. Someone in a private, voluntary and independent nursery will get a living wage of around £12 an hour, while someone in a job in a local authority early years setting will get roughly £16 an hour.

That makes clear the disparity that exists for those trying to give our young people the best possible start in life. We can see how things are already on an unequal footing, even before we begin to look at redeveloping childcare and early years according to the terms of today’s debate on a kindergarten stage and on learning through play. That sort of learning is vital to a child’s development. Indeed, I know that for myself; my toddler, who is going to be two next month, challenges me every single day to learn through play, and I have thoroughly enjoyed that experience with her.

As I have said, in looking at this issue as a whole, we need to look at what we are offering just now, get the structures and pillars in place and sort out the fundamental problems. Once we do that, we will have the right opportunity to look at how we can improve things and create and develop something new for Scotland that gives children the best possible start in life. I therefore challenge the minister to look at what we have just now and fix the problems with the provision of 1,140 hours to ensure that, when we come to look at the kindergarten stage, we are starting from the best possible place. That is what will benefit our children best, and that, after all, is the most important thing that we as parliamentarians can do.

I call Natalie Don to respond to the debate. You have up to seven minutes, minister.

13:23  

I am thankful to Fulton MacGregor for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I truly welcome the many excellent contributions that we have had from members and which have been informed by research and evidence from Upstart Scotland. I whole-heartedly agree that it is important to give our children the best possible start in life, and I strongly support this opportunity to foster an open dialogue on the best way of achieving that over the longer term.

I note the points that many colleagues have raised about the international evidence on the benefits of play-based early years education; on the benefits of active social play; on the issue of Scotland’s school starting age when compared with other European countries, and the fact that it has not changed since the 19th century; and on how a universal play-based kindergarten stage with a raised formal school starting age could contribute to closing the attainment gap. These are very important considerations that I take seriously and am interested in exploring further.

I absolutely recognise the critical importance of children’s early years experiences to their life outcomes, particularly when those children grow up in disadvantaged circumstances. I am aware that, since the pandemic, there has been an increase in the proportion of children who are not meeting their developmental milestones, and that there are persistent inequalities between children living in the most and the least deprived areas, so the debate is timely and important.

Members might not hear me say this often, but I whole-heartedly agree with some of what Meghan Gallacher says, because we do need to look at what is happening now. However, there have been huge achievements, and I will talk about some of them. Since 2014, we have undertaken one of the most significant reforms to public services in a generation. We have almost doubled the entitlement to high-quality funded early learning and childcare from 600 to 1,140 hours per year for all eligible children. We know that provision of high-quality ELC makes an important contribution to children’s outcomes, particularly, as I said, when they are growing up in disadvantaged circumstances. There has been near-universal uptake of the offer of funded ELC among three and four-year-olds, and independent research has shown that 97 per cent of parents are satisfied with the quality of funded ELC.

We should not underestimate what an achievement that is. However, and as I have said in Parliament, I do not shy away from specific concerns on rates. I have discussed that with many members, and I continue to discuss it with stakeholders such as 2020 Together. The member is aware of the on-going work on the rates review, and I am happy to discuss that further with the member. I do not feel that this debate is necessarily the right place for that discussion, because I have a lot that I would like to get through.

Another important achievement that we need to highlight—which other members have also highlighted—is on deferring school entry. Mr MacGregor rightly mentioned the tireless efforts of the Give Them Time campaign. As a result of those efforts, since 23 August, all children who defer their school entry are automatically entitled to that additional year of funded ELC. I know that members agree that that is a very important step forward in supporting parents to make those critical decisions in the best interests of their child, without the worry of additional costs.

I am a huge advocate of our approach in Scotland of promoting play-based, child-centred and outdoor learning in the early years. That is critical to supporting children to recover from the impacts of the pandemic, including in respect of their early language development, which is an area of children’s development that has been particularly affected.

I always like to bring in my personal experiences of witnessing excellent practice in person. On my recent visit to Little Bugs outdoor nursery in Dunfermline, I saw how outdoor learning and play benefits children in respect of their physical health and mental, social and emotional wellbeing. Children in ELC spend on average 39 per cent of their time outdoors. We are making very good progress on that.

That kind of excellent practice can also be delivered in the early years of primary school, because of the flexibility of Scotland’s curriculum for excellence, including the early level, which deliberately spans from age three until the end of primary 1. Our internationally recognised practice guidance, “Realising the ambition: Being Me”, is driving forward efforts to support child-centred play and ensure continuity and progression in learning as children begin their primary school education.

Martin Whitfield spoke about the UNCRC and the need for a child’s education to be tailored to that child. “Realising the ambition: Being Me” is wholly focused on that. Upstart Scotland has said:

“If this document can be translated into practice in all Scottish early years settings (including P1), Scotland’s ELC provision will be up there with the Nordic countries”.

It is imperative that we continue in our current efforts to ensure that realising the ambition is effectively and consistently implemented in early learning and childcare and in the early years of primary school. As Fulton MacGregor stated, there has been excellent progress in recent years. I saw that at first hand when I visited Roslin primary school last year, a visit that I have spoken of previously in the chamber.

I know that we still have some way to go to ensure that play pedagogy is fully embedded at the early level. To bring some of that together, I am keen that we understand fully the impact of implementing “Realising the ambition” and our transformational investment in ELC and the deferrals policy, which could help to inform any further major reforms. The final report on the evaluation of the expansion of funded ELC to 1,140 hours is due to be published by the end of 2025.

It is important to highlight that an ambitious programme of education and skills reform is under way to improve outcomes for people who experience and deliver education in Scotland. Members have referred to Upstart Scotland’s evidence, which shows that countries with a later school starting age perform better than those where formal education starts earlier. I am therefore open to exploring options for what a kindergarten stage would entail, building on the progress that has been made to date and the evaluation of our early years policies. On the specific points about PISA, I am interested in considering the data in further detail, alongside wider evidence.

We cannot shy away from the fact that introducing a kindergarten stage would be a fundamental change to our education system. All members who contributed touched on the factors that would need to be considered. It would require significant further work to take stock of the evidence, to understand the views of families, which Bob Doris rightly highlighted, and, of course, those of children, and to consider carefully both the costs involved and the implications for our workforce. However, I want to be clear with members that I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed in the debate. I am open to discussing the best approach with members from across the chamber and examining the matters that would need to be considered.

I again thank members who have contributed to this important discussion. I share their vision for early years education being based on relationship-centred, child-led and play-based environments with a greater focus on outdoor learning. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber and with organisations such as Upstart Scotland to make that a reality for all of Scotland’s children.

That concludes the debate. I suspend the meeting until 2 pm.

13:31 Meeting suspended.  

14:00 On resuming—