 Thank you, minister, that concludes topical questions. Next item of business will be a statement from John Swinney on excellence in education. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement. So there has been no interventions or interruptions, so I ask members to press their request to speak buttons if they wish to ask a question. I call on John Swinney. The programme for international student assessment, run by the OECD, every three years, yw'r ysgol o 15 oed, yn 72 oed, yn ymwneud, maeth a'u syniadau? Yn y bwysigant ar y cyfnodau lleiwyr mwyaf, ystafellau yng nghaerwyr yn ymwneud, sydd wedi eu cyfnodau yng Nghaerdydd. Mae'r ffigurau ddechrau ym Mwneud yn ddifud wedi ei gwybod, ond mae'n fwybodaeth i'u gwahyddo'r syrfaenwyr syniadau sydd yma yn yn arwaith. Felly mae'n fwybod bod ysgolwyr ym Mwneud yn ysgolwyr ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr o'r OECD yng Nghymru yn all three areas tested. It also showed that, compared with 2012, our performance in science and reading has fallen. In science and maths, we are now below the levels at which we performed in 2006, and more countries have outperformed Scotland in all three areas than at any time since PISA began. The results show that closing the poverty-related attainment gap is a complex challenge that is not unique to Scotland. The welcome improvements in performance of young people from deprived backgrounds, which we saw in the previous results between 2009 and 2012, have been maintained. However, there is still a gap between pupils in the least and the most disadvantaged backgrounds around three years' worth of schooling, according to the OECD. Pupils in Scotland are generally more positive about the value of learning science at school than is the case across the OECD. Classroom disruption is generally lower than average and relationships with teachers are more positive. Those relationships are crucial to improving outcomes. The results are consistent with the 2014 Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy, published in April 2015, which told us that we needed to do more to make our education system amongst the best in the world. Since that survey was published, we have set out and are pursuing a range of actions to improve Scottish education. If anyone was in any doubt about the need for the reforms that we have introduced and the improvements on which we are currently consulting, those results should dispel that doubt. Those reforms are based on the 2015 review of education in Scotland carried out by the OECD, the same body that runs the PISA assessments published today. The OECD's policy review was commissioned by the Scottish Government. Its purpose was to inform the on-going development of education policy, practice and leadership in Scotland by providing an independent review of the direction of the curriculum for excellence. In its review report published this time last year, the OECD said that curriculum for excellence was an important reform that was the right approach for Scotland. The OECD said that we had got the design right but that we needed to take further steps to secure the benefits of this new approach in all parts of the country. The report went on to make a number of recommendations on how we should do that. I want to focus on five of the key recommendations made by the OECD and how our response to those recommendations is driving the reform that is needed to improve education in Scotland. The OECD report said that there needs to be a more robust evidence base right across the system, especially about learning outcomes and progress. That is precisely why we have developed the national improvement framework and standardised assessments for our children in P1, P4, P7 and S3 to support teachers' professional judgments. That will provide us with a complete picture of how our children are progressing with our learning, covering the full range of school years so that we can see that progress at national, local authority and school levels is being made. It will allow us to plan targeted interventions to tackle the attainment gap between children from the most and the least disadvantaged backgrounds. Next week, we will launch the first ever national improvement plan for education, based on the widest range of performance information ever gathered on Scottish education as part of the national improvement framework. It is also why we have committed to providing teachers with benchmarks on assessing children's progress. Those benchmarks will set out with absolute clarity the standards that are envisaged within the curriculum. This is not to constrain teacher professionalism or to create a series of boxes to tick. It is to provide a tool that will be of genuine use in classrooms, will help to ensure consistency in the judgments that teachers make and substantially reduce the bureaucratic burden carried by the teaching profession. Secondly, the OECD also said that CFE needs to be a dynamic, highly equitable curriculum being built constantly in schools, networks and communities with a key role for a strengthened middle. That is why we have launched a wide-ranging review of education governance to gather views from parents, pupils and professionals on how education from early years to secondary school level should be run. At the heart of the governance review is the presumption that decisions about children's learning and school life should be made at the school level. Thirdly, the governance review also responds to a third recommendation from the OECD about the need to strengthen professional leadership. We have invested in leadership capacity in our schools by establishing and funding the Scottish College for Educational Leadership, which has delivered a new qualification for headship, which is fully funded by the Scottish Government. The Government will take forward further measures to enhance leadership and professional development within education. A fourth area that was covered by the OECD report was the need to be rigorous in our focus on closing the attainment gap for our poorest pupils. That is why we have launched and subsequently expanded the £750 million Scottish attainment challenge and taken the lead in showcasing the best practice in closing the attainment gap. We have also announced plans to double the free entitlement to early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours per year by 2020. That will help to narrow the vocabulary gap, which can be up to 13 months by the time a child starts primary school, and to help to ensure that all children arrive at school ready to learn. Finally, the OECD advised that we take steps to simplify and clarify the curriculum. In response to the recommendation in August, we published a definitive statement on CFE and benchmarks for literacy and numeracy. The statement sets out what every teacher needs to do in order to achieve the potential of CFE. Those definitive documents will provide clarity and replace thousands of pages of advice, guidance and case studies that had created a cluttered landscape. We have also announced changes to national qualifications, which will address the burden of over-assessment for young people and teachers as part of a relentless drive that I am leading to reduce red tape and ensure that teachers are freed up to concentrate on teaching. As well as responding to the OECD's recommendations, the Government has also taken a range of measures to drive improvement in the areas of reading, maths and science in the period since the PISA assessments were undertaken in 2015 and the publication of their results today. We have launched the Read-Write Count campaign. We have established making maths count group, which recently published the report of its findings and recommendations to boost mathematics achievement in Scotland. We are currently consulting on a strategy to raise levels of enthusiasm for and knowledge about science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The First Minister launched her reading challenge to promote and support reading for pleasure among primary 4 to primary 7 pupils. One of my early actions on taking up office as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills was to establish an international council of education advisers. Professor Andy Hargreaves, one of the international advisers and a member of the OECD review team who visited Scotland in 2015, has said that he is very impressed with the richness and the boldness of the curriculum, the confidence of Scottish learners, the professionalism of the country's teachers and the collective will to do even better to provide equitable opportunities and outcomes for all young people. Others have commended our belief in continuous improvement, our foresight and our patience in relation to education. Those are qualities that are much needed now. Those highly regarded experts from a range of countries across the world are credible independent voices. They are not describing an education system in crisis, they are describing a system that is striving to meet significant challenges. Yesterday afternoon, I held a teleconference with several of our international advisers to discuss the latest set of PISA results. They recognise that the challenges faced by Scotland are not unique. A great many other countries are having to reflect on deteriorations in their PISA results, particularly in relation to science. However, the unanimous advice that I received from our international advisers was to remain focused on taking forward the careful plans that we formulated in response to the SSLN data as part of our journey of reform. I consider that to be sound advice and I intend to follow it. The Government's plans for reform were set out in the delivery plan delivering excellence and equity in Scottish education, which was published in June following the national education summit. That programme is bold, ambitious and, in parts, controversial. A strength of Scotland's education system has always been in collaboration, a sense of national shared endeavour, but we now must be clear that reform is required. That data reinforces the case for radical change that the Government is determined to pursue. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in the statement. I shall allow around 20 minutes for questions. Would you please press your request to speak button if you wish to ask a question? I call on Liz Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement. Although, as I am sure is the case for every teacher, parent and pupil across Scotland, there will be great regret about the circumstances in which the statement has had to be issued. Not only are we now below the OECD average in the three measurements when we were above the average in all three measurements in the year 2000, but the most recent trends since the last set of PISA results in 2012 tell us that Scotland is heading backwards in two measurements. Would the cabinet secretary accept that the statistics that have been published today are a damning indictment of the SNP's education policies in our schools, and would he accept that they call into question the effective delivery of the curriculum for excellence? Would he tell us why, when the promotion of STEM subjects is supposed to be a top priority for the SNP, there are fundamental weaknesses in Scotland's showing in science in comparison with competitor nations? The first point that I would say to Liz Smith is that the Government has been perfectly prepared to have its approach to the delivery of curriculum for excellence tested by external advisers. Nobody could doubt that from the commissioning of the report by the OECD in 2015. That review was an assessment of the policy direction that had been started before this Government came to office of the design of curriculum for excellence, which this Government continued when it came to office and has now applied in consort with our local authority partners, with the professional associations, with the education agencies and with the broad cross-section of organisations that have been actively involved in the design and the delivery of curriculum for excellence within Scotland. One look at the curriculum for excellence management board will demonstrate the point that I have made in the concluding part of my statement that the Scottish education system has been taken forward in an atmosphere of collaboration. Yes, of course, the Government has been in the lead. I accept that unreservedly, but it has been a process of collaboration in reaching and involving a whole range of different bodies. When we asked the OECD to consider the approach to the implementation of CFE and the condition of Scottish education, I have put on record the OECD's view. Their view was that curriculum for excellence was the correct reform to be undertaken. They said that curriculum for excellence was the right curriculum for Scotland and that it created many strengths for Scotland at this stage in our education system, but they also set out for us a range of further measures to ensure that we achieve the full potential of curriculum for excellence, which is what the Government's reform agenda is focused entirely on delivery. On Liz Smith's final point in relation to science, I would say this. I have been absolutely upfront with Parliament about the deterioration in performance. I do not make any attempt to deny that. What Liz Smith has to do is to look at the data across the board. There is a general deterioration in participation and performance in science across many jurisdictions, and the OECD average itself has fallen as a consequence of that performance. I do not make any attempt to deny that, but I am simply putting it into the fair context that there is a wider question that the PISA analysis highlights of the wider participation and performance of young people within science. We in Scotland can only take the actions that we need to take to address those issues. That is why in my statement I went through a range of different measures that the Government is taking to strengthen the participation within the STEM subjects and to encourage more teachers to come into the STEM subjects. Liz Smith will be familiar that, just last week, I announced new and swifter routes into the teaching profession from individuals who will have a STEM background to enable them to be participants in Scottish education and help us to work together to ensure that we improve the performance of Scottish education, including on the STEM subjects. Iain Gray Thank you and thanks to the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Thanks to for his admission that those results do not make comfortable reading, I just think that that is quite the understatement. Those results are the legacy of 10 years of SNP Government, 10 years of cuts to education budgets, cuts to council funding and cuts to teacher numbers. I bow to no one in my respect for the professionalism, dedication and inspiration of our teachers. What our schools cry out for is enough of them with enough time, enough support staff and enough resources to do their job. That is the key reform that those results demand. When the budget comes forward next week, it must protect education spending and begin to reinstate the cuts of the past decade. Will the cabinet secretary promise that reform, but first will he just say sorry to the parents, children and teachers of this country? The first thing that I want to say is that I have come to Parliament willingly to explain the PISA results and to acknowledge that the contents of those results make uncomfortable reading for all of us in Scotland. All those issues, all those comments, I put on the record to sum up the Government's response to what are statistics and performance that is unacceptable and which we have to improve. I accept the responsibility to make sure that that happens and that is what will dominate my term in office as education secretary. Let me just answer the particular points that Iain Gray has raised. First of all, Mr Gray has made reference to the issues on local authority budgets. I simply refer Mr Gray to the report by Audit Scotland on behalf of the Accounts Commission, which was published last week. Taking into account 2016-17 funding, councils have experienced a real-terms reduction in funding of 8.4 per cent since 2010-11. That is approximately the same as the reduction in the Scottish Government's total budget over the same period. It puts Mr Gray's point into the proper context. My long-serving experience as the finance minister in this Parliament enables me to know and to understand that, when the Labour Party comes along here complaining about a lack of money for particular areas of policy, they are not very good. They weren't very good and, of course, they weren't very good over the long period in time in which I was the finance minister of telling us where the money would come from to make good any of the issues that have been raised in the statement today. The answer to Mr Gray's point on local authority budgets is contained in the detail of the Audit Scotland results as a consequence. On the question of teacher numbers, Mr Gray will of course be familiar with some controversy. I had to apply certain constraints on local authorities to avoid them reducing teacher numbers even further. I put in place those constraints much to the opposition of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have to say bluntly that many Labour councils in the country who wanted to reduce teacher numbers—I stopped them from doing so, and I make no apology whatsoever for protecting teacher numbers when Labour councils wanted to reduce them. Finally, on the question of the budget, the finance minister will set out the details of the budget in Parliament next week, but the Government has given its commitments to invest £750 million in tackling the attainment challenge that we face as a country. That is exactly what the Government will bring forward as part of its proposals, and the finance minister will set out a strong settlement that will enable us to tackle the issues that exist within Scottish education and to deliver for the young people of Scotland. I have my doubts that we will get through all the questions for which people have requested, so could we have shorter answers, please, cabinet secretary? The cabinet secretary is right that those results do not make comfortable reading, but they clearly do underline the case for the form of our education system, yet some have suggested that the Scottish Government should slow that down. Will the Deputy First Minister agree with me that we need to pick up the pace of the form when, while I will ensure that the Education and Skills Committee plays its role, particularly in monitoring and scrutinising implementation of the Government's review, does she also agree that there is now more reason for groups and members in this chamber to come together to support reform, just as she did when Curriculum for Excellence was introduced, helping it to succeed in its initial phase? John Swinney Presiding Officer, Mr Donnell makes a fair observation that Curriculum for Excellence has been widely supported across this parliamentary chamber and widely supported within the Scottish community into the bargain and implemented, as I explained in my answer to Liz Smith, in a collaborative way across the country. I have set out in my statement the Government's response, which is to reinforce the lessons that we learnt from the SSLN survey in 2015 of the need for us to progress with reform. That is exactly the agenda that the Government is pursuing, and I can assure Mr Donnell that the Government will pursue that with pace and urgency to improve Scottish education. Ross Thomson, followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would also like to thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement. On page 4 of the cabinet secretary's statement, under the key recommendation 2, he refers to the education governance review involving education practitioners. However, cabinet secretary, speaking to teachers in my region, many of whom attended a recent consultation event at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre, they have said to me that the review consultation itself is too bureaucratic, filled with too much jargon, and teachers were specific with me that, in some cases, they had no idea what some of the review questions were actually asking. With teachers already expressing little confidence in the review process, how can the cabinet secretary possibly deliver the reforms that he has articulated if he cannot take teachers with him? John Swinney. All I can say to Mr Thomson is that the Government is engaging very actively in detail in many conversations in many parts of the country about the details of the governance review. A number of ministers are involved in those conversations. I have taken part in them myself. I find them to be rewarding and thoughtful conversations in which a lot of different views are expressed, and the Government obviously takes those views into account in coming to its conclusions. All I would say to Mr Thomson is that we need to encourage participation in the discussions around the governance review, and the Government will ensure that that is the case, and ensure that we take a set of focused decisions that are designed to strengthen Scottish education as a consequence of the information that we hear from everyone who participates in that process. Daniel Johnson, followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I would like to add my thanks for the prior sight of the statement. I am glad that the cabinet secretary acknowledges the gravity of those results, but is it not the case that, since the SNP formed the Government of Scotland, we have lost two STEM teachers every week? There are 20 per cent fewer technicians, and lab assistants have reduced by half. What impact has this reduction of resources in our schools had on our PISA rankings? John Swinney? What we have to address as a Government is the resources that are available to us and have been available to us to address the challenges across the public services. We have delivered, over the course of the past nine years, very strong fair settlements for local authorities, which are evidenced by the quote that I shared with Mr Gray as a consequence of the Audit Scotland report. The Government does not choose how many technicians there are in schools. We do not choose who the teachers are in schools. Those decisions are taken by local authorities. I simply point out to Mr Johnson once again that, if I had not stepped in to stop local authorities, many of them run by his own party from wishing to reduce teacher numbers further, we would have had fewer teachers in our schools than we have today. That is the uncomfortable truth for the Labour Party that I had to stand it to step in to stop local authorities from reducing teacher numbers. I am very glad that I did so. OECD rightly highlighted the role of leadership in our schools, and I welcome the role that the Scottish College for Educational Leadership is playing in that regard. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the college seeks to empower middle leaders who will be key to driving improvement in classrooms across the country? John Swinney I think that the question of leadership is a well demonstrated point within the OECD review of Scottish education, but it is also a very visible illustration of where strength comes from in the education system. I was in a secondary school yesterday in Glasgow in John Paul academy at Somerston, which is a fantastically well led school with a very clear direction with a tremendous learning environment. Leadership demonstrated at all levels within the particular school. I think that the point that I would make to Jenny Goruth on leadership is that we have to recognise the importance of leadership right throughout the school community, not just at headteacher level, but right throughout the school community, so that there is a constant focus on how we strengthen and improve Scottish education at every level in which teaching and learning is being delivered. Ross Greer, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like colleagues, I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister for Advanced Copy of his statement. Today's report on the piece of figures coincides with another report from Enable Scotland. It does not make for comfortable reading, either. It found that far too many young people with additional support needs feel, and indeed are, excluded in school. That has an unavoidable impact on their attainment. Given the links between the attainment gap and the prevalence of additional support needs, will the Government use the powers of this Parliament to bring forward a budget that will allow local government to reverse the cuts of hundreds of additional support needs teachers and support staff in recent years? In addition, could the Deputy First Minister outline what evidence the Government has of any educational benefit of moving control of education from a local level to a regional board? On the first point, the French Minister will set out the provisions of the budget next Thursday. Mr Greer would not expect me to prejudge that, but I would simply say that the points raised by Enable Scotland are important points about the importance of including every young person in our education system and ensuring that they achieve fulfilment. When the Government sets out—and I have made this point clear to the Parliament before—the centrality of the agenda of getting it right for every child, that has to mean for every single child and we have to meet their needs. Secondly, I would make to Mr Greer about educational regions. I have, and it is well-published information, data from Audit Scotland, which significantly questions the ability of individual local authorities to add value to education within the schools and in their areas of responsibility. The data tells us that we have to enhance and support the enhancement of learning and teaching in Scotland. We must do that. It is clear from the data that I have, published data, that some local authorities are not able to add that value. What we have to confront is the hard reality that we have to make sure that that is available to every single school in the country, because it is not good enough for me to turn a blind eye to that in certain parts of the country. Some local authorities are able to do that, and others are not. I want to make sure that we have an educational development resource that is available in every part of the country that can add value to the educational experience of young people. That is the point of co-operation between local authorities to create educational regions. I simply make the point that, when we are making choices in difficult circumstances about the resources that are available to us, we must be prepared to work across boundaries—to do what the OECD said to us—to work collaboratively across boundaries and to share good practice, and to ensure that that can have a profound impact on the educational experience of young people in Scotland. That is the justification for educational regions in Scotland. As has been highlighted, progress in closing the attainment gap has been maintained, and the impact of deprivation is around OECD average. However, would the cabinet secretary agree with me that maintaining progress is not enough to make the changes that we all want to see, and that we should strive for higher than average? John Swinney I accept that point, and that is the focus of the recommendations that we receive from the OECD review. It is the focus of what we are taking forward as part of the national improvement framework and the Government's work on attainment, and it features in the steps that we have already taken over the past 18 months or so to advance the agenda and to take every step that we can to close the attainment gap within Scottish education. Tavish Scott, followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I also thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. Will the Deputy First Minister accept that he is the fourth SNP education secretary in nine years? Under his Government's watch, and no one else, these results are shocking, will he agree that he has to do much, much more to allow Scotland's teachers to actually teach? His Government's education quango has issued 20,000 pages of guidance on curriculum for excellence to every school. That has simply not worked. How many of those 20,000 pages will actually go? Does he accept that no parent, teacher or pupil will accept financial cuts to schools after today? Will he meet local authority leaders before the budget next week to agree how to maintain spending in Scotland's schools? John Swinney In relation to the point that Mr Scott makes on guidance, over the course of the implementation of curriculum for excellence, there have been various discussions and dialogue within the collaborative structures for taking forward curriculum development through the curriculum for excellence management board that I referred to in my response to Liz Smith, which has resulted in the drafting of guidance to provide greater clarity to the teaching profession. I accept that the cumulative burden of that guidance has become unnavigable for the teaching profession, which is why I have set about reducing it. It is why the definitive guidance that I issued to every school teacher in the country in late August was designed to give absolute clarity about what was expected of the teaching profession, and it was followed by a simplification agenda from the chief inspector of education. There will be a huge reduction in the volume of paperwork and guidance that is available to the teaching profession as we move to a much simpler and more crystallised approach to advice on the curriculum through the benchmarks that I talked about in the statement. I say to Mr Scott that the feedback that I have had from the teaching profession on the literacy and numeracy benchmarks that were issued has been very good feedback from members of the teaching profession who have believed it to be valuable, and that is the spirit in which we will take forward our approach to the benchmark information in the future. On the final point that Mr Scott raised about local authorities, obviously there are on-going discussions with local government around the whole issue of the public finances. Mr Mackay, the finance minister is taking forward those discussions and I understand that there are some further meetings on that plan for today. I can squeeze in two more quick questions, please, from Jeremy Balfour and Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I think that the clear message for my results today is that this Government has failed a generation in regard to education, and we in Scotland will play a place for that in future years ahead. Looking ahead, would the cabinet secretary agree with me that we now need to look at having specific science teachers in primary schools who are trained in science and who can bring that education to the children so that we do not see another generation falling further behind? I am quite happy to concede that the detail here is uncomfortable reading, but I have to say that Mr Balfour's characterisation of the situation is absolutely over the top. The OECD analysis does not bear out Mr Balfour's analysis. The view of a number of international educational advisers does not bear out Mr Balfour's analysis. I do not think that we do, I am quite happy to have an honest debate about where we are, but we have got to have that debate in the spirit of decent quality information that the OECD and our international advisers have given us. I do not think that the debate is well served by the characterisation that Mr Balfour has given to it today. I think that the Conservatives know, because I have made this point to them before, that the idea of specialist science teachers in the primary sector would run contrary to the whole approach to the delivery of primary education within curriculum for excellence. I accept the importance of young people being captivated by an interest in science, and it has to happen at the earliest possible stage in their educational journey. I have seen countless occasions around the country, fabulous examples of how that can be done, not by specialist science teachers, but by teachers who are motivated to deliver the broad curriculum that will enhance the educational opportunities of our young people. There has been no acknowledgement of the cuts to local authorities and schools, or apologies from the Scottish Government benches to our young people and their teachers, some of whom are in the chamber today. It seems that this Government is only in the business of taking credit and never the blame. Meanwhile, the cabinet secretary's governance review— Ms Lennon, I did say to you quickly, please. Is proposing the centralisation of funding for setting school budgets, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to teachers, pupils and their families that has planned well and sure that all schools will get the funding that they need? John Swinney I do not know where Monica Lennon has been for the last half an hour, because I have given a pretty candid account of things to Parliament about the challenges that we face. On the issue of funding, I will tell you where I want to send funding. I want to send funding direct into the schools of Scotland so that our leading teachers can take decisions about the needs of the children in their schools. That is what I want to do, and I want to make sure that we have a debate in Parliament about the way in which we can do that, and that I hope that the Labour Party will engage constructively in that discussion. Does not appear to be the case. That concludes questions on the statement. The people could quietly receipt them