Curriculum for Excellence
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the resignation of the head of the curriculum for excellence ahead of the first sitting of the new national exams. (S4T-00635)
The Scottish Qualifications Authority has made it clear that the new qualifications will be unaffected. The individual, Mr Roderic Gillespie, is part of just one of eight different teams within the SQA that have been involved in the curriculum for excellence and the SQA is, of course, one of the 17 different organisations—ranging from local authorities to teaching unions, Education Scotland and the Scottish Government—that are involved in the delivery of CFE.
I should also make it clear that, although Mr Gillespie was involved in the development of the exams, he has not been involved in their implementation. Given that we are now only 42 days from the first exam, it is fair to say that we are long past the point at which development was complete. That said, Mr Gillespie remains in post until after the first national exam has been taken, by which time all development work relating to the new highers will also be complete. Therefore, it is little surprise that the SQA, along with the other partners that are involved in delivering CFE, is able to say with confidence that the new qualifications will be unaffected by the change in personnel.
The introduction of the new qualifications remains on track. The Scottish Government and its partners have provided an unprecedented level of support to help teachers and schools to prepare for curriculum for excellence and the national qualifications, which were developed with considerable input from stakeholders and with broad support. The most recent support package was announced on 21 February and was widely welcomed.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I assure him that parents remain concerned. Yesterday, I received an email from a concerned parent who, following the resignation, said:
“Is there something so wrong that he wants to leave before he has to deal with sorting out the mess that he has created?”
They went on to say:
“News of Mr Gillespie’s resignation does not give me confidence and has made me even more worried about the way the new exams have been introduced ... There seems to be constant testing with no time for consolidation in class. My son has continually complained about the courses being rushed and about mistakes in the course materials that are being used to help revise. He was told in one class they did not have time to review the prelim paper. We have had to purchase extra resources at considerable expense to help him study for his exams. Not all parents are lucky enough to be in a position to afford this for their children.”
What does the cabinet secretary have to say to that parent? Is he proud of his Government’s record on the delivery of curriculum for excellence and the new exams? Will he take full responsibility for them?
It is important that, when people who are involved in education—this applies to people at every level—have concerns, they raise those concerns in the way that is most supportive of young people, particularly young learners. With 42 days to go to the exams, I stand with Jackie Brock, the chief executive officer of Children in Scotland, who, on this issue, today said:
“Young people themselves will not be worrying about the departure of one individual from the SQA. Their main priority right now is to study and revise for their exams. They deserve the best in consistent support from all of us.”
I have some advice for the member who asked the question: it is probably best to contact the SQA to ask a question before contacting the newspapers. That will provide the best support that can be given to our young people.
I would be happy to outline for the member, either here or in writing, the very substantial support that has been in place for many years for the new national qualifications. Such support for CFE remains in place, and it has been warmly welcomed by the teaching unions, among others, every time we have put it in place.
We now need to move towards the first diet of exams—which I stress is only 42 days away—in a way that supports our learners and does not simply seek publicity for politicians.
The cabinet secretary says that the support package has been warmly welcomed by the Educational Institute of Scotland. That is the EIS that said that it has not encountered such widespread anger, disappointment and frustration with the exams authority as it is currently witnessing. I do not blame the SQA; I blame the cabinet secretary. It will be his responsibility when this goes wrong.
I point the cabinet secretary to what is happening at Prestwick academy, which he seems to be unaware of. The parents and the headteacher there have made the situation known to the authorities but have received no response. There is a serious shortage of chemistry teachers at Prestwick academy, such that it will not be possible to teach the CFE course in its entirety before the day of the exam. Therefore, the headteacher is having to get in teachers from other local authority areas to teach the children on a Saturday to ensure that they can complete the coursework before the day of the exam.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that, according to SQA guidelines, that will not be counted as exceptional circumstances when the tests are reviewed and marked? Does he think that that is acceptable? Will he take steps to ensure that, when his Government has failed to implement the national curriculum properly, pupils will not pay the heaviest price?
Of course, there is no national curriculum in Scotland. That is a fairly basic piece of information that requires to be known. Curriculum for excellence is a methodology—it is a means of teaching.
We work very closely with the SQA and Education Scotland in taking an overview of all developments in Scotland. The member is conflating a variety of different issues. I hope that she is doing so out of a genuine lack of knowledge of education in Scotland. If she is doing so to create an atmosphere in which the young people who are studying for these exams, which are 42 days away, will be put in a position of fear and concern, that would be—I choose the word carefully—reprehensible. [Interruption.]
Mr Bibby.
As far as the response of the unions is concerned, let me quote Larry Flanagan, who is the general secretary of the EIS. When the latest package of support was announced on 21 February, he said:
“The EIS believes that this new support package is a positive development that will be very welcome in our secondary schools.”
Alan McKenzie, who is the acting general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, said:
“This is a welcome announcement ... The review to the verification arrangements particularly for this year should have a positive impact on the concerns of our members.”
I ask the member to keep to the consensus in support of CFE, which has been extremely important in the Parliament, and to think of Scotland’s young people more than she thinks about getting her name in the newspapers.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that we must continue in the spirit in which curriculum for excellence was created, which was one of co-operative working across all the parties to support Scotland’s pupils and teachers as they take the curriculum forward and deliver lasting improvements in Scottish education?
I very much agree that the consensus that we have developed in Scottish education around the introduction of CFE—although that consensus has not been without its difficulties, it has lasted right through the life of this Parliament—has meant that we have been able to ensure the best interests of Scotland’s young people and the best possible support for all teachers. At the end of the day, that is what is going to succeed. If anybody departs from that as, regrettably, we have seen in the past 24 hours, the losers will be Scotland’s young people. Every member in the chamber needs to think about that very carefully indeed.
The cabinet secretary will acknowledge that it has been a trying past few months. The Scottish Government has made a couple of interventions in response to concerns that have been raised as we move towards the first diet of the exams. In that light and bearing in mind his acknowledgement that lessons would need to be learned as we move forward not just with the new highers but with the national 4 and 5 qualifications, does he think that the effort to learn lessons will be hindered by the departure of Mr Gillespie, who was a key player in the roll-out of the examinations?
I do not think that it will be affected in the slightest. As far as I am aware, Mr Gillespie is not going to Mars. He will of course be available if anybody wants to speak to him. He is actually being promoted in another organisation, which probably gives the lie to the view that there is something wrong in this. The statement from the SQA was very clear. I have had sight of the email to Kezia Dugdale from Janet Brown, who is in charge of the SQA. It is very important that Janet Brown, as the head of the SQA, is listened to. [Interruption.] Mr Bibby is shouting. It is quite important that members do not shout and do not seek to put themselves on the front of newspapers. [Laughter.] I am sorry that there is laughter on this issue. It is really important for Scotland’s young people that we listen to this: with 42 days to go to the exams, Scotland will best be served by making sure that the consensus on CFE continues in place. As Jackie Brock said, for young people,
“Their main priority right now is to study and revise for their exams. They deserve the best in consistent support from all of us.”
Of course there are lessons to be learned. In a previous debate in the chamber, I not only confirmed the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s view, but, in response to what I thought were very important questions from the Tory front bench, confirmed that the curriculum for excellence management group would take a special look at what has taken place in the past few months. I think that that is an important reassurance. What is not reassuring is people who try to grandstand on the issue. They can only damage young people.
As Ms Dugdale has raised the specific issue of Prestwick academy, which is in my constituency, can the cabinet secretary assure Parliament that he will take an interest in Prestwick academy and offer all support to it and its headteacher, Mr Bone, and South Ayrshire Council in their efforts to find chemistry teachers for the school at this time?
The constituency member has spoken to me before when teacher supply issues have arisen in his constituency and he knows that I have been very positive in trying to assist, and that is what the Government will do. However, what the member did of course was raise those issues with me directly. He did not come to the chamber and use them as a back-up argument for another story. If constituency members and others have concerns, of course we will try to make sure that everything is done to support Scottish education. Supporting Scottish education is the job that I undertake. I would have hoped that other members, too, thought that they had a role to play in that.
The lack of leadership and the complacency that we have seen from the cabinet secretary on the implementation of the new exams have been breathtaking. It is completely unacceptable to treat kids sitting their exams in that way. It is a mess of the cabinet secretary’s making and he will need to answer major questions after the exam diet but, at the moment, he is the man who is ultimately responsible and he needs to sort it out.
Could we just have a question, Mr Bibby?
Teachers and pupils have asked for free exam practice papers. Where are they? What is Mike Russell going to do to alleviate the other concerns of teachers, pupils and parents? If he is so confident that everything in the garden is rosy, will he give a clear, categorical assurance today on the record that everything will go to plan with the new highers and the new exams?
Dr Allan takes day-to-day responsibility for the SQA, and he and I have been giving that assurance. I have been doing it since I became cabinet secretary, because I have actually been working on this issue. The unfortunate thing that we have seen from Ms Dugdale and Mr Bibby is that they have been trying to get themselves publicity. That is not positive when we are 42 days from the exam diet.
The list of the support that the Government, along with others, has given to CFE speaks for itself. From 2011 onwards, we have been adding support into the system and doing what is needed. What we have not been doing is trying to undermine confidence in the system for party-political advantage. I have to say, though, that doing that does not gain party-political advantage, given the response that I have had from most people who read the news item in question and spoke to me. When I explained the circumstances, they were disgusted that politicians would behave in that way. For the sake of Scotland’s young people, that should stop now. The consensus on CFE is that it is going to make a difference. That consensus has got us here, and to try to break it now is very foolish indeed.
Faslane Naval Dockyard
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reports that the Ministry of Defence is seeking to increase the level of liquid waste that it discharges into the Clyde at Faslane naval dockyard. (S4T-00642)
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has been reviewing the agreement with the MOD that covers the disposal of radioactive waste into the Clyde from Faslane, and it proposes to lower the permitted limits of discharges from the site. Although that more stringent regime should, in theory, benefit our environment, the MOD has indicated that the actual levels of discharges from the site may increase over the next few years due to the increasing number of submarines that will be based there, albeit that the discharges are expected to be well within the new limits. Although I welcome SEPA’s plans to strengthen the permitted limits for the site, this is another example of an agreement between SEPA and the MOD that is not legally binding. Last week, I announced that we propose to remove the Crown exemption for MOD sites in Scotland, which will give SEPA a binding mandate to regulate instead of relying on a gentlemen’s agreement in such circumstances.
Given the secrecy of the MOD regarding the incident at the Vulcan site, information about which has recently emerged, can we be sure that SEPA has been made aware of the full details regarding the situation at Faslane?
It is fair to say that the Vulcan incident, which was discussed in the chamber last week, has broken the trust that existed between the MOD and the people of Scotland. That is why we have given a commitment to remove the Crown exemption for such sites, so that SEPA can be empowered to regulate those sites as it regulates every other site in Scotland. We must tackle the culture of secrecy that was unveiled following the discovery of the Vulcan incident and make sure that we do not have such an incident in the future.
It is concerning that the MOD has a culture of secrecy around its activity. Recent Westminster parliamentary answers have revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not informed of the incident at the Vulcan site until more than eight months after it happened, despite the Secretary of State for Defence claiming that key ministers were informed throughout. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the so-called respect agenda has disappeared?
Following the events surrounding the Vulcan incident, which could not have been more serious given that it involved radioactivity and MOD sites that have nuclear facilities, I, too, think that the respect agenda has been abandoned.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, stated in the House of Commons recently:
“Key Ministers within the Government were, of course, aware of these issues throughout.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 6 March 2014; Vol 576, c 1081.]
He was referring to United Kingdom ministers. However, I understand that Alistair Carmichael, the current Secretary of State for Scotland, has just revealed in a parliamentary answer in the House of Commons that the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, was not told about the incident at the Vulcan site until more than eight months after it occurred—in contradiction to Philip Hammond’s claim that key ministers were kept in the loop. That is despite the fact that the former secretary of state, Michael Moore, visited the Vulcan plant in April 2012, at a time when it was shut down due to the incident.
If the Scotland Office ministers are not being kept in the loop—as well as the local community, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the wider people of Scotland—it is understandable why people believe that there is a culture of secrecy and cover-ups within the MOD in Scotland.
The background to Stuart McMillan’s question assumes that Scotland will remain within the United Kingdom and that thousands of new jobs will be created at Faslane, not destroyed by the Scottish National Party. Will the cabinet secretary confirm what submission the Scottish Government has made to the SEPA consultation and, post a no vote in September, how the Scottish Government will engage with the MOD on a regular basis?
Following its consultation, SEPA will share the conclusions that it reaches with the Scottish ministers in due course. In terms of the impact on the referendum debate, it is now clearer than ever before that we need a yes vote so that Scotland can become independent and we can make the decision, as a people, that we do not want nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines based in Scotland but would much rather that the investment be devoted to more conventional defence forces and other jobs and needs in Scotland.