The Annual Conference of the SNP takes place on the 20-23 October in Inverness (Eden Court Theatre). And as ever, we'll be running a series of interesting fringe events.
Here's a sneak preview:
Saturday 22 October - 12.30pm - First Circle, Eden Court Theatre, Inverness
The health of our nation and a tale of two countries - CSPP Debate with Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP
The Scottish and UK Governments are on distinct and different policy paths. Nowhere is this more evident than in health.
The creation of the NHS revolutionized public policy. The core principle that healthcare should be free and available to all remains as relevant now as it did in the 1940’s.
Yet, fundamental challenges lie ahead for the NHS in Scotland. How will it cope with intense demographic changes? The desire for democratization and a preventative approach? Increasing budgetary pressures and an ever expectant public? Promote deeper service integration?
Join us at the CSPP fringe meeting to debate the future of the NHS in Scotland.
Saturday 22 October - 5.30pm - First Circle, Eden Court Theatre, Inverness
Closing the gap between aspiration and reality - CSPP Transport Debate with Transport Minister Keith Brown MSP
After the resounding success of our Dragons Den on Transport, we welcome back Keith Brown MSP, Minister for Transport to the CSPP fringe.
In the face of large cuts to capital budgets, the Scottish Government remains committed to investing significantly in Scotland’s transport infrastructure to improve connectivity and integration.
However, will this programme actually deliver a sustainable transport system that is accessible, affordable and more efficient?
Join us at the CSPP fringe meeting to debate the future of transport policy in Scotland.
See you there.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Supporting Scotland's Cities
CSPP Policy Director Ross Martin is at Holyood’s “Supporting Scotland’s Cities” conference. Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, was the first keynote speaker.
Key Points
• Cities drive innovation and achieving sustainable economic growth depends on the performance of Scotland’s cities.
• Cities need to build stronger partnerships and work together (public, private and third sector) to make an even bigger impact.
• The Scot Govt will live up to its manifesto promise to: improve infrastructure and connectivity, give cities more freedom, enhance academia and develop city regions.
• Cities are central to the Scot Govt’s economic strategy and capital investment is of vital importance (context: 36% cut in Scotland’s block capital element).
• The delivery model for new capital projects will be NPD, along with Network Rail's funding mechanism.
• Cities need a strategy/action plan/route map to help them to support economic growth.
Six Cities Agenda
• The role of SCDI is to bring strategic leadership, not interfere or assume responsibilities of local government.
• Cities are not homogenous. This is not a one size fits all policy.
• Alignment has to take place between the Six Cities and relevant Scot Govt departments.
Q&A
• Q1. On the issue of distinctiveness, the Cab Sec emphasised the sectoral specialisms in each city, e.g. gaming in Dundee. But, cities must learn "not to trip over each other" and recognise relative strengths.
• Q2. On the issue of sustainable economic growth, the Cab Sec said we need the proceeds of growth for public spending, but we do need growth to be sustainable (nothing on efficiency or effectiveness).
Key Points
• Cities drive innovation and achieving sustainable economic growth depends on the performance of Scotland’s cities.
• Cities need to build stronger partnerships and work together (public, private and third sector) to make an even bigger impact.
• The Scot Govt will live up to its manifesto promise to: improve infrastructure and connectivity, give cities more freedom, enhance academia and develop city regions.
• Cities are central to the Scot Govt’s economic strategy and capital investment is of vital importance (context: 36% cut in Scotland’s block capital element).
• The delivery model for new capital projects will be NPD, along with Network Rail's funding mechanism.
• Cities need a strategy/action plan/route map to help them to support economic growth.
Six Cities Agenda
• The role of SCDI is to bring strategic leadership, not interfere or assume responsibilities of local government.
• Cities are not homogenous. This is not a one size fits all policy.
• Alignment has to take place between the Six Cities and relevant Scot Govt departments.
Q&A
• Q1. On the issue of distinctiveness, the Cab Sec emphasised the sectoral specialisms in each city, e.g. gaming in Dundee. But, cities must learn "not to trip over each other" and recognise relative strengths.
• Q2. On the issue of sustainable economic growth, the Cab Sec said we need the proceeds of growth for public spending, but we do need growth to be sustainable (nothing on efficiency or effectiveness).
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
My Levy is Your Tax
Leigh Sparks - Stirling Retail
It might not have been in the manifesto, but it certainly made headlines. Wandering into the newsagent yesterday morning, John Swinney would have seen an almost uniform newspaper lead coverage on his new “Public Health Levy”.
Only, the words used were a little different – shop raid, smash and grab, price hikes, shopping bill tax, commitment breach. The only health issues involved were the collective raised blood pressures of the journalists, editors and the food retailers – oh, and the impotency of the opposition parties in the Parliament to do anything about it this time.
After suffering a bloody nose last year in the rushed, botched version one of the ‘Tesco tax’, John Swinney has come back for more. Only this time he’s brought his backbench majority friends to the (now one-sided) fight. Putting lipstick on the pig of the supermarket tax, we now have a ‘public health levy’ – and who could be against public health?
As ever, the detail will be revealing, not least for the legal wriggle room it offers and the operational reactions it will induce. But the idea of having food retailers (through a black hole, sorry hypothecated box) pay for health prevention activities seemed to go down really badly with the newspapers.
Their view was that the last people who will pay for this will be the retailers. The extra costs (£30m, £35M whatever per annum) will get passed on to suppliers and/or consumers. The idea of differential prices in England and Scotland as a direct consequence would seem peculiar however and even more costly for retailers; unless of course they really wanted to make a point – a retail equivalent of Stelios’ “fat bastards tax” on Luton airport perhaps. Maybe less “public health levy” and more “Swinney’s messages money grab”.
The issue is why tax the food retailers when the there is so much else that is possible or wrong? It is like taxing drug dealers whilst subsidising drug producers. There is much in this that is “illogical and discriminatory” to quote the Scottish Retail Consortium. That of course does not make the basic idea (prevention is cheaper than cure) wrong; but does open up the need for a full debate on what we should be doing and how.
Why tax large retail stores, when convenience and other small stores are so much more dependent on fags and booze for sales and in turn their local consumers are so much more dependent on these small stores for their supplies? Tax them, close them down and the supply in local areas is cut off. Why not tax bars, pubs, hotels, nightclubs, political, social and sporting clubs where alcohol and tobacco are every bit as significant and over-consumption is rife?
And if we really want to do something about health, then a “fat tax” on McDonalds and other fast food chains and local chippies ought to be on the agenda. Or maybe we could go the other way and have tax relief for spas and health clubs? What about those retailers who hit targets for anti-smoking promotion or product sales, or on healthy or low fat foods?
So why supermarkets and/or large retailers? Expediency perhaps, revenge for last year possibly? Or maybe it is because they believe the ‘chattering classes’ that supermarkets and superstores are evil and people hate them. But there’s the rub – even in the most vociferous of the places fighting new supermarket development, substantial numbers (often majorities) of local people are still in favour of such development.
And week in, week out, across Scotland people shop in, and feel well served by these stores. Supermarkets and superstores hit the consumer spot in far more cases than they miss. Forcing the daily and weekly shop to become more expensive or difficult is not really a vote winner with lots of people, despite what some of the rhetoric says.
Let’s have the debate on health and prevention and the environments we are all exposed to and the abuses they can create. But don’t pretend this is a “Public Health Levy” in a true thought out sense; it is an expedient money grab from businesses perceived to be able to afford it.
From the business perspective, all businesses need to be concerned about this tax, as logically it could be extended in many directions. The already known rapid rise in business taxes over the next few years in Scotland is going to produce real problems. Who knows what the trailed empty property (vacant shop) relief revisions will look like and do?
But for retailers, what would really concern me most is the certainty of falling real incomes for the next three years, due to pay freezes, pension costs increases, general inflation, probable spiking utility and other costs and all the other bad news out there,. Where are the sales going to come from in the next few years? And what new retailers are going to soak up these (and those still to come) empty premises?
It might not have been in the manifesto, but it certainly made headlines. Wandering into the newsagent yesterday morning, John Swinney would have seen an almost uniform newspaper lead coverage on his new “Public Health Levy”.
Only, the words used were a little different – shop raid, smash and grab, price hikes, shopping bill tax, commitment breach. The only health issues involved were the collective raised blood pressures of the journalists, editors and the food retailers – oh, and the impotency of the opposition parties in the Parliament to do anything about it this time.
After suffering a bloody nose last year in the rushed, botched version one of the ‘Tesco tax’, John Swinney has come back for more. Only this time he’s brought his backbench majority friends to the (now one-sided) fight. Putting lipstick on the pig of the supermarket tax, we now have a ‘public health levy’ – and who could be against public health?
As ever, the detail will be revealing, not least for the legal wriggle room it offers and the operational reactions it will induce. But the idea of having food retailers (through a black hole, sorry hypothecated box) pay for health prevention activities seemed to go down really badly with the newspapers.
Their view was that the last people who will pay for this will be the retailers. The extra costs (£30m, £35M whatever per annum) will get passed on to suppliers and/or consumers. The idea of differential prices in England and Scotland as a direct consequence would seem peculiar however and even more costly for retailers; unless of course they really wanted to make a point – a retail equivalent of Stelios’ “fat bastards tax” on Luton airport perhaps. Maybe less “public health levy” and more “Swinney’s messages money grab”.
The issue is why tax the food retailers when the there is so much else that is possible or wrong? It is like taxing drug dealers whilst subsidising drug producers. There is much in this that is “illogical and discriminatory” to quote the Scottish Retail Consortium. That of course does not make the basic idea (prevention is cheaper than cure) wrong; but does open up the need for a full debate on what we should be doing and how.
Why tax large retail stores, when convenience and other small stores are so much more dependent on fags and booze for sales and in turn their local consumers are so much more dependent on these small stores for their supplies? Tax them, close them down and the supply in local areas is cut off. Why not tax bars, pubs, hotels, nightclubs, political, social and sporting clubs where alcohol and tobacco are every bit as significant and over-consumption is rife?
And if we really want to do something about health, then a “fat tax” on McDonalds and other fast food chains and local chippies ought to be on the agenda. Or maybe we could go the other way and have tax relief for spas and health clubs? What about those retailers who hit targets for anti-smoking promotion or product sales, or on healthy or low fat foods?
So why supermarkets and/or large retailers? Expediency perhaps, revenge for last year possibly? Or maybe it is because they believe the ‘chattering classes’ that supermarkets and superstores are evil and people hate them. But there’s the rub – even in the most vociferous of the places fighting new supermarket development, substantial numbers (often majorities) of local people are still in favour of such development.
And week in, week out, across Scotland people shop in, and feel well served by these stores. Supermarkets and superstores hit the consumer spot in far more cases than they miss. Forcing the daily and weekly shop to become more expensive or difficult is not really a vote winner with lots of people, despite what some of the rhetoric says.
Let’s have the debate on health and prevention and the environments we are all exposed to and the abuses they can create. But don’t pretend this is a “Public Health Levy” in a true thought out sense; it is an expedient money grab from businesses perceived to be able to afford it.
From the business perspective, all businesses need to be concerned about this tax, as logically it could be extended in many directions. The already known rapid rise in business taxes over the next few years in Scotland is going to produce real problems. Who knows what the trailed empty property (vacant shop) relief revisions will look like and do?
But for retailers, what would really concern me most is the certainty of falling real incomes for the next three years, due to pay freezes, pension costs increases, general inflation, probable spiking utility and other costs and all the other bad news out there,. Where are the sales going to come from in the next few years? And what new retailers are going to soak up these (and those still to come) empty premises?
Thursday, 22 September 2011
CSPP in the News
CSPP Board Member Richard Kerley was interviewed on GMS earlier today on the Scottish Government's spending plans. Professor Kerley said:
When asked if the Scottish Government had shifted the responsibility for delivering the council tax freeze onto councils, Professor Kerley said:
“There are a number of interesting developments within the documents the Scottish Government have produced. They have offered councils an incentive not to increase council tax and yet the amount of money offered for that policy remains at a level that was set 4/5 years ago. In real terms, this is a decreased amount of money, so yes he has shifted a lot of the burden onto councils”.
“One of the key areas that are going to be problematic in the next couple of years for both councils and the central Government is the issue of redundancies because it is the council that is the employer. “
On Local Government borrowing, Richard said:
“The borrowing is in effect for building and improving facilities. Now, there is a good case for doing that. Investing in capital projects, particularly those that can be achieved in smaller tranches and rapid succession, is a good way of sustaining activity and employment in a very hard hit construction sector.“
Click here to listen to the interview (7 days left to listen).
When asked if the Scottish Government had shifted the responsibility for delivering the council tax freeze onto councils, Professor Kerley said:
“There are a number of interesting developments within the documents the Scottish Government have produced. They have offered councils an incentive not to increase council tax and yet the amount of money offered for that policy remains at a level that was set 4/5 years ago. In real terms, this is a decreased amount of money, so yes he has shifted a lot of the burden onto councils”.
“One of the key areas that are going to be problematic in the next couple of years for both councils and the central Government is the issue of redundancies because it is the council that is the employer. “
On Local Government borrowing, Richard said:
“The borrowing is in effect for building and improving facilities. Now, there is a good case for doing that. Investing in capital projects, particularly those that can be achieved in smaller tranches and rapid succession, is a good way of sustaining activity and employment in a very hard hit construction sector.“
Click here to listen to the interview (7 days left to listen).
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
The Inevitable Plan B
Another day, another growth forecast downgrading UK economic growth.
The IMF are predicting UK GDP to grow just 1.1% in 2011, 0.4% reduction from its previous World Economic Outlook report in June. This is not the first time the IMF has cut their growth forecast for the UK economy. In April they predicted 1.7% and in January 2%.
If you take this with the OBR’s forecasting, it’s clear that no one really knows what’s going to happen. All we know is that we’re in for a bumpy ride. What we do know, however, is that the UK Government “remains committed to implementing the deficit reduction plan which has delivered stability”. Put simply, no Plan B for growth. Cue Ed Balls
“The IMF is saying very clearly that if slow growth continues in the UK the Government should change course and adopt steadier deficit plans… That’s why we need a real plan for jobs and growth, here in Britain and around the world, and we need it quickly.”
The more Labour press for a Plan B or the Scottish Govt call for a “Plan MacB”, the more the Coalition Govt dig in their heels. The reluctance is understandable from a political perspective in that they don’t want to be seen to be taking advice from the opposition.
But more fundamentally, their credibility as a Government is tied up with the deficit reduction strategy. Remember, this isn’t just an economic reaction to the UK’s mushrooming debt crisis but an ideological wish to create a smaller state.
If they admit they were wrong about this, the argument goes, what else were they wrong about? All of this creates uncertainty and indecision and breeds weakness. Or does it? I’m not convinced. Neither am I convinced that the Coalition is slavishly going to stick to a Plan A that is clearly not working.
Behind the scenes, the Treasury will be working on a Plan B (of course, they will have to call it something else). In fact, they might have it. I don’t have a source to validate this theory, but I do have history.
An excerpt from Bob Woodward’s “The War Within” (p85) illustrates my point. It’s August 2006 and slowly but surely it is dawning on the Principals that their current strategy in Iraq - “clean, hold and build” - is failing catastrophically.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is leading a review of the strategy, while simultaneously the Administration publicly reaffirms their belief that the current plan is working.
“No, I don’t believe that it’s failing” said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
“But, is there not some discussion about what happens if it doesn’t work, a Plan B?” asked the reporter.
“What you want to do is settle on a plan and then press as hard as you can to make it work. And that’s where everyone’s energies are at this point, and I think this plan is going to work” replied Rice.
The Coalition Govt has, or are working on, a Plan B. What they need to find is an exit strategy to sell it.
Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Manager
Catching up?
Leigh Sparks - Stirling Retail
Just back from my latest travails. This time to Singapore where the IRS signed a new agreement for scholarships for our undergraduate retail degree. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency are sponsoring 90 scholarships over 3 years at an investment of S$3m.
I also took part in our University graduation ceremony which saw PhD, MBA and Retail marketing undergraduates graduate, and spent time teaching on our Diploma in Retailing programme (we offer Diploma. Undergraduate and MBA in Retailing degrees in Singapore).
So what happened when I was away? A couple of things registered via messages or emails:
* The August retail sales figures for Scotland confirmed the fears some (including me) have been expressing for a while now; the recession is nowhere near over. The figures were amongst the worst ever recorded (again) by the Scottish Retail Consortium series.
*The waste mountain generated supposedly by the confusion amongst sell by, use by, best before and other dates is all the fault of the retailers. I don’t quite understand this – there is confusion for sure, but is it really all the retailers’ fault? Consumers need education and clarity and a willingness to see, smell or taste if food is going off.
So that’s me caught up then. But, a figure from Singapore keeps intruding – recorded retail sales growth of c10% per annum is seen as normal and acceptable. And this from a country that is far from cheap these days.
So how do we catch up with that?
Well investment in education and the workforce might be a part of it (though I would say that wouldn’t I!). But it is about attitude and approach as well. Two instances:
*Foreign students are increasingly welcomed in Singapore, but only if they commit to stay and work in the country (thus ‘pay back’) for a couple of years after they graduate. And the UK government’s parallel policy – foreigners to go home days after they graduate.
*When the credit crunch hit a few years ago, Singapore expanded the numbers going into University and Polytechnics to seize the opportunity to add skills to the workforce (and to ‘mop-up’ youth unemployment). And the UK? Citing the looming deficit we decided to cut numbers and to raise costs and fees for students.
Let’s guess the economic and social impacts of these two approaches? Some way to go to catch up perhaps.
Just back from my latest travails. This time to Singapore where the IRS signed a new agreement for scholarships for our undergraduate retail degree. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency are sponsoring 90 scholarships over 3 years at an investment of S$3m.
I also took part in our University graduation ceremony which saw PhD, MBA and Retail marketing undergraduates graduate, and spent time teaching on our Diploma in Retailing programme (we offer Diploma. Undergraduate and MBA in Retailing degrees in Singapore).
So what happened when I was away? A couple of things registered via messages or emails:
* The August retail sales figures for Scotland confirmed the fears some (including me) have been expressing for a while now; the recession is nowhere near over. The figures were amongst the worst ever recorded (again) by the Scottish Retail Consortium series.
*The waste mountain generated supposedly by the confusion amongst sell by, use by, best before and other dates is all the fault of the retailers. I don’t quite understand this – there is confusion for sure, but is it really all the retailers’ fault? Consumers need education and clarity and a willingness to see, smell or taste if food is going off.
So that’s me caught up then. But, a figure from Singapore keeps intruding – recorded retail sales growth of c10% per annum is seen as normal and acceptable. And this from a country that is far from cheap these days.
So how do we catch up with that?
Well investment in education and the workforce might be a part of it (though I would say that wouldn’t I!). But it is about attitude and approach as well. Two instances:
*Foreign students are increasingly welcomed in Singapore, but only if they commit to stay and work in the country (thus ‘pay back’) for a couple of years after they graduate. And the UK government’s parallel policy – foreigners to go home days after they graduate.
*When the credit crunch hit a few years ago, Singapore expanded the numbers going into University and Polytechnics to seize the opportunity to add skills to the workforce (and to ‘mop-up’ youth unemployment). And the UK? Citing the looming deficit we decided to cut numbers and to raise costs and fees for students.
Let’s guess the economic and social impacts of these two approaches? Some way to go to catch up perhaps.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Return of a Mac can be a boost for schools
Published in the Scotsman, 14/9/11
Ok, perhaps many a Mc does a Mac make after all. Or at least one would be inclined to believe so given the schoolboy error of Scottish Labour's aspirant leader Ken Macintosh, misspelling Professor Gerry McCormac's name on their party press release while responding to his report into the future of teaching in Scotland's schools.
Another Mc, the fabulous character of Grange Hill's Mrs McCluskey, wouldn't have been impressed. Easy to mix up all these Macs and Mcs, given that the professor and his team were reviewing the impact of the McCrone report, originally commissioned by Jack McConnell under the direction of Henry McLeish.
In attacking key aspects of the review, the Labour Party rightly focuses on teacher numbers, but should be sent to the back of the class for their terrible line that "Teachers should be left to teach, not dish out school dinners or repair computers".
The review does not even come close to suggesting a change to teachers' conditions that would have them engaged in any activity other than teaching, or supporting pupil learning with other tasks. So, what about the meat of the McCormac review? Why was it necessary, and what does it actually say? Some time ago now everyone involved in teaching agreed that pay had fallen way behind many other professions, of equal or lesser worth to society. After more than a decade of ultimately fruitless negotiation, the Scottish Government established the McCrone review to sort out the squabbling.
Now, leave aside the fact that the prequel to McCrone, timeously entitled the "Millennium Review", had actually secured the support of the teaching union's negotiating committee before being junked without a ballot of the memberships.
Also ignore the fact that this earlier review included a range of reforms to the profession designed to "recruit, reward and retain" quality teachers, e.g. the inclusion of a sabbatical year for key members in the staff room and the integration of extra-curricular support such as coaching school sports teams into the standard public sector school teacher's contract.
The eventual McCrone deal was a classic political fix. McConnell had been handed the poisoned chalice of avoiding looming disruption in Scotland's schools by first minister McLeish. They rushed to sign a deal that gave everything and got nothing in return.
At a cost of around one and a half tram sets, that's £1.3 billion in ordinary money, teachers gained their rightful pay reward, but everyone else involved suffered as a result.
First to go were the after-school clubs, emptying bored teenagers on to the streets. Then parents' evenings were cut back as these often time-hungry sessions didn't quite fit into the box provided in "non-teaching time". Then followed Saturday morning sports coaching and many other aspects of what was previously seen as a normal working week, in the 40 that constitute a school year.
This was all part of a depressing attitudinal shift from one with high professional standards towards a clock-watching mentality more akin to manual workers on poverty pay. Far from introducing flexibility, the 35-hour week, a core element of the McCrone settlement, has conditioned teachers, and especially their unions, into a way of working that doesn't come close to be described as professional, never mind fit for the 21st century, the title on the McCrone tin.
Even more damning, standards in Scotland's schools did not improve. As the McCormac Review starkly puts it, teachers' pay and conditions need to "strengthen the quality of teaching and leadership" in Scotland's schools, because they have not been. In other words, we paid an awful lot of cash for little, if any, improvement in the classroom experience for a generation of pupils. This deficit needs to be addressed.
The McCormac review rightly recommends a more flexible approach, enabling teachers to lead their own profession, to develop, monitor and continuously improve standards. It calls for a "reinvigorated professionalism" with "all teachers embracing professional obligations which go beyond that which can or should be embodied in a contract". In other words, let teachers teach, and organise themselves in a manner which "is in the best interests of young people".
Patently, this is not the case right now. The school year, based upon the agrarian calendar is not fit for last century, never mind this one. Of course, the report doesn't deal with this wider issue, as it was not in its remit to do so. However, if we are indeed to move towards a system and structure which is in the best interests of young people, and by extension their parents, then surely a move to four equal terms of ten weeks each is inevitable?
As well as allowing for much easier planning of the curriculum, and all other aspects of delivering a quality learning programme, such a move would also open up our schools to a wide range of external influences, the kind of which McCormac rightly promotes. The current restrictive practice of allowing only GTC registered teachers in front of a class "risks denying access to potentially valuable experiences for children and young people".
The current practice is a dereliction of duty.
A simplified school calendar, brought into line with the way in which many of us organise our working lives, around the four financial quarters of the year, would make it so much easier for other professions to engage with the education of our children. Professions and trades have so much to offer both in terms of the learning experience and as role models for our young people; artists and architects, engineers and electricians, journalists and joiners, planners and plumbers… all have a part to play.
The use of other professions would have another benefit, a potential reduction in class contact time. On the importance of this issue I wholeheartedly agree with the teaching unions. Teachers cannot be expected to perform at their very best across a crowded teaching timetable and this is one way in which to take some of the pressure off. Of course, another is to reshape the school week.
In this age of asymmetrical federalism, whichever version (devo-max or indie-lite) we vote for, the asymmetric week is surely worth a mention. Why? Because it works.
Moving to one half-day, by slightly increasing the length of the other four teaching days, is something which we know improves both teaching quality and school standards. When we introduced this in West Lothian in the 1990s it allowed an enrichment of the education programme with a wide range of other activities, such as sports, arts, crafts, music and outdoor education on that half day, supporting an overall improvement in all measurable educational outcomes.
Another aspect which McCormac promotes in seeking to bring teaching into the real world, recognising the budgetary pressure which we all face, is to put a stop to the dubious political initiative of smaller class sizes. The report recognises that there is scant evidence to demonstrate any benefit from marginal reductions in class sizes and that these nationally driven targets set by the SNP, before they knew they would win an outright majority in the parliament, "should not be pursued at the expense of overall teacher quality".
Above all, however, and this is a theme that runs through the McCormac review, local circumstances must be allowed to shape the way in which Scotland's schools are organised and run. Not all schools are the same - and neither they should be. Some decisions are appropriate for local authority level, others for schools themselves, but teaching as a profession must take control and drive up standards for all.
• Ross Martin is the policy director of CSPP and a former CoSLA Education Convener who was involved in the pre-McCrone negotiations.
Ok, perhaps many a Mc does a Mac make after all. Or at least one would be inclined to believe so given the schoolboy error of Scottish Labour's aspirant leader Ken Macintosh, misspelling Professor Gerry McCormac's name on their party press release while responding to his report into the future of teaching in Scotland's schools.
Another Mc, the fabulous character of Grange Hill's Mrs McCluskey, wouldn't have been impressed. Easy to mix up all these Macs and Mcs, given that the professor and his team were reviewing the impact of the McCrone report, originally commissioned by Jack McConnell under the direction of Henry McLeish.
In attacking key aspects of the review, the Labour Party rightly focuses on teacher numbers, but should be sent to the back of the class for their terrible line that "Teachers should be left to teach, not dish out school dinners or repair computers".
The review does not even come close to suggesting a change to teachers' conditions that would have them engaged in any activity other than teaching, or supporting pupil learning with other tasks. So, what about the meat of the McCormac review? Why was it necessary, and what does it actually say? Some time ago now everyone involved in teaching agreed that pay had fallen way behind many other professions, of equal or lesser worth to society. After more than a decade of ultimately fruitless negotiation, the Scottish Government established the McCrone review to sort out the squabbling.
Now, leave aside the fact that the prequel to McCrone, timeously entitled the "Millennium Review", had actually secured the support of the teaching union's negotiating committee before being junked without a ballot of the memberships.
Also ignore the fact that this earlier review included a range of reforms to the profession designed to "recruit, reward and retain" quality teachers, e.g. the inclusion of a sabbatical year for key members in the staff room and the integration of extra-curricular support such as coaching school sports teams into the standard public sector school teacher's contract.
The eventual McCrone deal was a classic political fix. McConnell had been handed the poisoned chalice of avoiding looming disruption in Scotland's schools by first minister McLeish. They rushed to sign a deal that gave everything and got nothing in return.
At a cost of around one and a half tram sets, that's £1.3 billion in ordinary money, teachers gained their rightful pay reward, but everyone else involved suffered as a result.
First to go were the after-school clubs, emptying bored teenagers on to the streets. Then parents' evenings were cut back as these often time-hungry sessions didn't quite fit into the box provided in "non-teaching time". Then followed Saturday morning sports coaching and many other aspects of what was previously seen as a normal working week, in the 40 that constitute a school year.
This was all part of a depressing attitudinal shift from one with high professional standards towards a clock-watching mentality more akin to manual workers on poverty pay. Far from introducing flexibility, the 35-hour week, a core element of the McCrone settlement, has conditioned teachers, and especially their unions, into a way of working that doesn't come close to be described as professional, never mind fit for the 21st century, the title on the McCrone tin.
Even more damning, standards in Scotland's schools did not improve. As the McCormac Review starkly puts it, teachers' pay and conditions need to "strengthen the quality of teaching and leadership" in Scotland's schools, because they have not been. In other words, we paid an awful lot of cash for little, if any, improvement in the classroom experience for a generation of pupils. This deficit needs to be addressed.
The McCormac review rightly recommends a more flexible approach, enabling teachers to lead their own profession, to develop, monitor and continuously improve standards. It calls for a "reinvigorated professionalism" with "all teachers embracing professional obligations which go beyond that which can or should be embodied in a contract". In other words, let teachers teach, and organise themselves in a manner which "is in the best interests of young people".
Patently, this is not the case right now. The school year, based upon the agrarian calendar is not fit for last century, never mind this one. Of course, the report doesn't deal with this wider issue, as it was not in its remit to do so. However, if we are indeed to move towards a system and structure which is in the best interests of young people, and by extension their parents, then surely a move to four equal terms of ten weeks each is inevitable?
As well as allowing for much easier planning of the curriculum, and all other aspects of delivering a quality learning programme, such a move would also open up our schools to a wide range of external influences, the kind of which McCormac rightly promotes. The current restrictive practice of allowing only GTC registered teachers in front of a class "risks denying access to potentially valuable experiences for children and young people".
The current practice is a dereliction of duty.
A simplified school calendar, brought into line with the way in which many of us organise our working lives, around the four financial quarters of the year, would make it so much easier for other professions to engage with the education of our children. Professions and trades have so much to offer both in terms of the learning experience and as role models for our young people; artists and architects, engineers and electricians, journalists and joiners, planners and plumbers… all have a part to play.
The use of other professions would have another benefit, a potential reduction in class contact time. On the importance of this issue I wholeheartedly agree with the teaching unions. Teachers cannot be expected to perform at their very best across a crowded teaching timetable and this is one way in which to take some of the pressure off. Of course, another is to reshape the school week.
In this age of asymmetrical federalism, whichever version (devo-max or indie-lite) we vote for, the asymmetric week is surely worth a mention. Why? Because it works.
Moving to one half-day, by slightly increasing the length of the other four teaching days, is something which we know improves both teaching quality and school standards. When we introduced this in West Lothian in the 1990s it allowed an enrichment of the education programme with a wide range of other activities, such as sports, arts, crafts, music and outdoor education on that half day, supporting an overall improvement in all measurable educational outcomes.
Another aspect which McCormac promotes in seeking to bring teaching into the real world, recognising the budgetary pressure which we all face, is to put a stop to the dubious political initiative of smaller class sizes. The report recognises that there is scant evidence to demonstrate any benefit from marginal reductions in class sizes and that these nationally driven targets set by the SNP, before they knew they would win an outright majority in the parliament, "should not be pursued at the expense of overall teacher quality".
Above all, however, and this is a theme that runs through the McCormac review, local circumstances must be allowed to shape the way in which Scotland's schools are organised and run. Not all schools are the same - and neither they should be. Some decisions are appropriate for local authority level, others for schools themselves, but teaching as a profession must take control and drive up standards for all.
• Ross Martin is the policy director of CSPP and a former CoSLA Education Convener who was involved in the pre-McCrone negotiations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)