Tuesday, 5 February 2019

School Budgets - Transparency and Accountability

This past week has been fairly busy. I have been out and about in the Ward catching up with residents, including getting feedback on the poorly advertised changes to bin calendars over the Christmas period. I have also been to a number of meetings including the first Invertiel TRA of the year - one of my favourite meetings. An informative Q&A session was held with the Scouts in Burntisland and finally there is a resolution to the long-running saga of the fence around the viaduct. All that must wait for another post though. 

The Scottish Government set its budget last week, relying on the support of the Greens. It's a budget to hammer all hardworking Scots. Council tax increases, proposed parking charges at work and cuts to local authorities. The SNP at Holyrood may claim to be funding local authorities sufficiently but this is absolute nonsense, we have so much ring-fenced money now (read - top-down centralisation) that local authorities are having to cut back and cut back. If there is any austerity in Scotland it is the making of this SNP government. 

What I have continued to do is speak out against proposed draconian cuts to Education in Fife. This SNP-Labour coalition need to be doing a lot more to protect vital services within education and petition their leaders at Holyrood for more funding (what is interesting is that Labour at Holyrood criticises the cuts being made and rightly so. However, in Fife they are in a cosy coalition with the SNP and this means an almost complete silence on criticising them - the price of being a junior partner in a coalition?). The threatened closure of the Business Education Department at Queen Anne in Dunfermline remains an ongoing concern - which I have outlined in the first letter below. The second one refers to the motion to the Education & Children's Services Committee which called for a report to be made available - this of course was voted down by the SNP-Labour councillors who continue to work closely together. See the link to my earlier post on this - http://www.kathleenleslie.co.uk/2019/01/school-budgets-what-level-of.html

Here is what I had to say.



“There will be no negative impact on teachers”, these were the words Fife Council’s Education Directorate used when Cllr Kathleen Leslie asked about the upcoming dissolution of the Business Education Department at Queen Anne High School.

“At the Education & Children’s Services Committee last week I enquired as to what moving a subject, currently taught in school, to college would mean. I was told this would not have a negative impact on teaching staff. However, I am far from convinced about this” said Conservatives Education Spokesperson, Cllr Leslie.

“Currently pupils can select both Admin and Business at Higher, with the new course choices they can only choose one of these. Additionally, contact time each week will be cut by two periods. Combine this with travelling time to and from the college and you can see that subject choice across the curriculum is going to be limited.”

“Business at Queen Anne High School is a regularly oversubscribed subject at all stages and has a long-standing teacher. However, what is being proposed under the Managing Change exercise will see this teaching post go and pupils see a reduction in their options. I find this simply astounding when Business Education subjects are vital to the economic prosperity of the country. I have been contacted by pupils who sent me the course choices form and are understandably very concerned about what these changes will mean to them.”

“What exactly are the staffing arrangements at Fife College? Does it have permanent staff in place so there is a long-term guarantee for these subjects to run? What happens to pupils who want to study more than one Business course at Higher? Until now I have had absolutely no satisfactory answers from Fife Council’s Education Directorate. I have also asked about the financial cost when moving courses to the college, as of yet I have had no response.”

“Originally this cut was proposed as part of a savings package but now it seems that despite having an £80,000 reduction in its staffing budget Queen Anne’s budget this upcoming year will be up £151,000 with a predicted underspend of £139,000. Therefore, why on earth is the school cutting a department that is both popular and running subjects that open up opportunities for young people?”

“Yes, there should be more collaboration with the college when appropriate but this must not be at the expense of choices for pupils or cutting teaching jobs.”




Dear Sir 

At last week’s Education & Children’s Services Committee Cllr Dave Dempsey and I put forward a motion calling for greater transparency and scrutiny of secondary school budgets. This was as a result of savings proposals voted through last year that have seen an overall cut of 1.5% to school budgets, which in some cases will lead to staffing cuts and a potential shortening of the school week. 

Additionally, through a series of email correspondence with Council officers it transpired that “a headteacher through the Parent Council should agree the school budget spend with parents on an annual basis”. Something that through further investigation we know definitely does not happen across the board. Indeed, some parents have stated this has never come up at Parent Council meetings. Quite possibly because headteachers have not always, through no fault of their own, been aware of the requirement to do this. 

In light of these cuts and the ongoing concerns raised by parents and teaching staff as to the implications of a proposed further round of savings, we called for a report to come to the Education & Children’s Services Committee so that this could be discussed in a public forum. However, the SNP and Labour councillors on the Committee voted this down and instead presented an amendment that stated that they “noted the contents of a briefing paper” and that “members should contact officers for information as requested”. Therefore, no public report to Committee, and no opportunity for concerned parents and teachers to attend the Committee and hear any debate and discussion.

Whilst the SNP in Fife are doing as their Holyrood colleagues and going all out to avoid any scrutiny, it is surprising to see Labour acquiesce and also vote down transparency on an issue that affects so many people across the local authority. It seems that Labour continues in their role of junior partner in this coalition and would rather parents remain the dark as to how secondary school budgets and consequential changes will ultimately affect the young people of Fife. 


Yours


Tuesday, 29 January 2019

School Budgets - What Level of Transparency?

Last week the Education & Children's Services Committee for the first time in 2019. The agenda was a busy one and rather than discuss the full contents in this one post I will talk about a couple of the others later.

Secondary school budgets and the setting of them and levels of transparency have dominated quite a bit of time over the past few months. The very real impact of cuts to schools and pupils is becoming very concerning. Last year's budget saw a cut of around 1.5% to the overall secondary school budget - leading to cuts to staffing and now the potential shortening of the school week in some high schools.

Understandably this has resulted in much concern from parents as to the implications of these cuts. I went to a meeting held by Fife EIS in December of last year which was attended by both teaching staff and parents - although, notably no SNP or Labour Councillors (the Administration at Fife Council) where these very real worries about what cuts to teachers such as guidance staff and promoted positions will mean? It leaves questions about what incentives there are for teachers to relocate to Fife (the local authority having struggled to fill vacant posts over the past 3 years) and what impact in the long-term this will have on pupils. Proposed cuts such as Business Education at Queen Anne High School will mean the department will go and courses will apparently be offered at the local college. Although, from initial enquiries this will mean a reduction in the amount of lessons on offer and a reduction in the number of Business subjects that it will be possible to take at Higher. None of it appears clear at this stage.

Additionally, we discovered about a month ago that when it comes to the decision-making process on where the money from the school budget goes and who the headteacher is accountable to, there was further opaqueness and confusion. The Directorate advised that: "A headteacher, through the Parent Council should agree the school budget spend with parents on an annual basis". This line is quite astonishing as it was something that councillors were clearly not aware of and even worse - when speaking to Parent Council representatives few were even aware of this. Not all headteachers themselves would even have been aware of this or how this was to be agreed and when. One long-standing councillor remarked that despite attending these meetings for years the topic of spending the school budget had never come up! 

As result of all of this the Conservative group decided to put up a motion to the Education & Children's Services Committee last week to address these concerns. The motion stated: 

  1. Motion
    “Committee
• NotesParental concerns around budget and other consequential changes in
Fife’s secondary schools.
A degree of confusion around these changes.
That schools have been asked to explore changes consequent on a budget decision that the Council has not yet made and may not make.

Accordingly asks that a report be presented to the next meeting of this committee:-
Detailing, in total and for each secondary school
  •   The overall DSM budgets and, where available, actual DSM spends for 2016-17, 2018-19 and any anticipated figures for 2019-20 which have been given to schools for planning purposes
  •   The changes which schools have made or propose to make as a consequence of budget changes made in February, 2018 and/or anticipated for February, 2019
Describing the process for the approval and monitoring of the DSM budget in each school, including the proposed role of Parent Councils and elected members”

Proposed by: 
Councillor Dave Dempsey 
Seconded by:
Councillor Kathleen Leslie

This was a motion that was technical in nature rather than political. However, clearly calling for a report which would have allowed plenty of debate and discussion along with scrutiny in a public forum was just not palatable. Predictably the SNP and Labour councillors voted it down. Instead they tabled a weak worded amendment that only sought to ensure the discussion was kept well away from the public realm. It read:

Amendment
Councillor Fay Sinclair moved, seconded by Councillor Linda Erskine, to note the contents of the briefing paper which had been circulated on the managing change exercise last week and that members should contact officers for information such as requested in the motion at any point.

Therefore, said very little of any substance.

Following this outcome a press release has been issued by Cllr Dempsey and I. Here is the text:

What are Fife Labour & SNP Trying to Hide?
That’s the question posed by the Conservatives on Fife Council after the SNP/Labour Administration voted down a proposal for a report on the Devolved School Management Budgets of Fife’s Secondaries.
Group Leader, Cllr Dave Dempsey said “Last February, the Council voted through a cut of about 1.5% in the overall secondary school budget. That was notionally a cut in staffing, though Headteachers have considerable freedom to spend a school’s allocation as they think best.
“When the effect on individual schools trickled out, parents at some were up in arms. It turned out that the cut had been combined with changes in the distribution, so that some schools had been hit by a cut twice as big or more than their proportionate share, whereas others had seen a budget increase.
“Moreover, we found that schools were looking to cut staff numbers to cover this year’s change plus a further cut that councillors may or may not approve next month. SNP & Labour know this is happening. What does that say about their budget plans?
“To add to the confusion, it turns out that even schools with budget cuts can have more to spend this year than last, due largely to the £1.74m that they carried forward from the previous year’s underspends. There’s such a shortage of teachers that our schools can’t use up their budgets. That’s not new and it’s predicted to continue. Eleven of the eighteen schools are predicted to underspend this school year. Why then are they looking to cut posts so savagely?
“This information prompted a broader question – who agrees a school’s budget and to whom is the Headteacher accountable for how it’s spent. This isn’t a trivial question. The biggest schools have budgets in millions. The answer included one astonishing line – ‘A Headteacher, through the Parent Council should agree the school budget spend with parents on an annual basis’.
“If this happens at all then those schools are the exceptions. In most parent Councils, the budget is scarcely discussed, let alone agreed. Are Parent Councils even aware?
“In an attempt to ensure that councillors understand and can discuss this hugely important topic, we called for a report to the Education Committee. Labour and the SNP combined to reject that. Apparently, individual councillors should ask questions out of public view. That would mean that no-one would know what anyone else was asking, the public would have no visibility whatsoever and the benefit that comes from a round table discussion would be lost.
“it comes as no surprise that the SNP acted as they did. Since the regained a share of power in May 2017, they’ve worked to suppress the scrutiny role of councillors. What’s surprising and more than a little sad is Labour’s willingness to go along with that. They did much between 2012 and 2017 to promote the scrutiny process. Now they’ve turned their backs on it. Why?

“The Conservative Group will continue to ask searching questions and to keep the public informed. That won’t be as quick or effective as it could have been but, whatever the Administration parties want hidden, we’ll find it sooner or later”.
Conservative Education Spokesperson, Cllr Kathleen Leslie added “"In December 2017 the Conservatives proposed a motion to Council on new high schools in Dunfermline. I was rebutted and told to take it to Committee. Now when we bring a motion to Committee it is watered down by an amendment that seeks to avoid discussion and scrutiny. This appears to be symptomatic of the SNP-Labour Administration. This year's savings proposals are going to hit some schools hard. We know that promoted posts are to go, departments such as Business Education are to be closed and the school week will be shortened in some schools. This all needs to be discussed transparently in the open forum of the Education & Children's Services Committee. Not on an ad hoc basis where it will bypass the public. What exactly has the Administration got to hide?"











Monday, 17 December 2018

SNSA - Fife Council Votes To Withdraw

Thursday's full Council meeting saw Fife vote to withdraw from P1 SNSA. After a process that saw a vote to withdraw back in October, which was then overturned at the Education & Children's Services Committee then following a call-in to the Scrutiny Committee by my colleague Cllr Richard Watt we got to last Thursday. 

Going through the debate again and questions being asked of lead officers who attended the Council meeting a vote was held. Tabled by the Labour group and agreed by the rest of us, with the exception of the SNP, Fife Council vote to withdraw the testing of Primary 1 children using this method of assessment.

I was nominated by Cllr Watt to speak to the call-in item two weeks ago at the Scrutiny Committee where I outlined why I believed these assessments are not appropriate for Primary 1 pupils and why I believe it is possible for the local authority to withdraw. The link to what I said at Scrutiny can be found here - http://www.kathleenleslie.co.uk/2018/12/p1-snsa-scrutiny-committee.html

Below is the text of what I said on Thursday followed by some links following the vote. I absolutely believe this was the correct decision. The more that I researched this the more convinced I have become that no Primary 1 pupil should be sitting a numeracy assessment of 32 minutes and a literacy assessment of 44 minutes. This goes against the philosophy of Curriculum for Excellence and is not conducive to the learning of such a young child. 

Speech to Council:

SNSA

Today, for the fourth time I am speaking out against P1 SNSA. Having spent a considerable of time these past couple of months reading the evidence, which continues to grow, as to why these assessments are completely unsuitable, educationally flawed and potentially damaging to the well-being of Primary 1 children, I am yet further persuaded that we must halt SNSA for P1 now. 

There are two parts to what I will say today. The first being the case against SNSA for P1 and the second why I believe Fife Council can withdraw from these assessments. 

Play Scotland has stated that it is “tests of opportunities, exploration and everyday adventures” that matter not academic tests in Primary 1. One of the earliest documents produced for the Early Years was Building the Curriculum 2 which stated “A key message is that approaches to fostering learning need to be flexible to take account of the needs of the child, and will change as children develop”[2]. Unfortunately, these assessments are not flexible and they take up time where tests of opportunities and exploration could be taking place instead. Even worse, feedback from teachers in Fife released under the FOI have cited that alignment with Experiences & Outcomes and the benchmarks for P1 are difficult to see and that “assessments are narrow and do not reflect the principles of CfE”.

Very explicit examples of concerns about SNSA here in Fife are within the 700 pages of the FOI request. I would urge that you look at it. 

Whilst claims of distressed children have been dismissed by more than one councillor I would direct them to the Scottish Government’s own SNSA User Review which notes at paragraph 30: “Some teachers reported that children found the assessments upsetting.” 

Is it any wonder? On the Scottish Government’s own User Review, the average time for the assessments are 32 mins for numeracy and 44 mins for literacy. How are these administered in a busy classroom of 30 P1 children? In Fife, despite claims of no assessment windows, the feedback is clear “tests carried out en masse” and “The Council set out the timings” continuing “It was decided by management with minimum notice given to staff”. “All pupils have to complete them in May regardless of readiness” – that confirms what the Scottish Government’s User Review states – that 16,000 assessments were taken in one day in May across the country. Others commented the impact on learning and teaching with a SFL teacher having to take groups of children to do the assessments. 

The amendment passed in this Chamber in October requested a report be brought to the Education & Children’s Services Committee outlining if withdrawal from the assessments in P1 was possible. A report was duly presented, containing, I might add, a fair bit of content that was completely irrelevant to the question being asked. We were presented with “positive” and “less positive” takes on the assessments, along with how many children had sat the assessment and how many had been withdrawn – 1 child, but that may be because a survey carried out by Connect found that 70% of parents had no idea their child was sitting an SNSA.

Is it possible? There is nothing in the report to suggest it is not possible. Having sought legal advice, the Directorate notes there are two key points to consider. The first is that there is “there are no specific regulations enacted or statutory guidance issued imposing a legal duty to carry out P1 SNSA.” Instead it was “anticipated that education authorities would therefore adopt the assessment scheme without the need for regulations imposing these”. That of course would require an amendment to the Education Act as the Education Secretary in his missive to local authorities of 4thSeptember provides advice that “SNSAs, in common with virtually all aspects of the Scottish curriculum and its delivery, are not provided for in legislation. This means that they cannot be seen as compulsory”. 

The report further states that the Council would have to demonstrate that it had evidence that such “withdrawal was a reasonable and proportionate step” and also “that it had alternative means of assessing the children it is obliged to educate.” 

The Directorate’s own response notes that P1 “SNSA appears to be the least strong and effective of all the year groups at which SNSA is undertaken”. It also states that “a significant number of schools remain to be convinced of the immediate advantages of using SNSA at P1”.  Leading to the question that does any of this constitute a need to withdraw or is it about identified areas for improvement?

What is this improvement? The Scottish Government has made much of the fact that around one third of questions will be replaced – an improvement? Possibly, but that was already in the pipeline long before the User Review so they knew something was not working. Secondly, the idea of replacing “problematic” questions, or what could be described as teething problems could be argued as a case to continue if it weren’t for the fact that thousands of these assessment questions were already carried out with children prior to SNSA going live. 

The User Review also suggests there could be better ways of “incorporating the SNSA into the teaching”. Thereby, inferring there must be something wrong with the current implementation by class teachers. 

Does Fife have an alternative means of assessing the children it is obliged to educate? Yes, it does. A tried and tested method which not only assessed literacy and numeracy as SNSA does but which looked at cognitive, physical and emotional development in a child in P1, these tests were also far shorter. 

The report claims that the new assessment will produce potentially highly valuable information that will accord with national standards. However, it is difficult to feel at all convinced by this claim when Scotland’s largest teaching union states that at best they assess between 5% and 10% of the skill set covered in P1. The tests are being carried out in the most part near the end of the year by which time class teachers will have used numerous other assessment methods and therefore forms no baseline. 

That is not GIRFEC and it is not what the play-based learning philosophy of Curriculum for Excellence was ever supposed to be about. 

These assessments by their very name “standardised” and “national” indicate they are just a huge data gathering exercise by the Scottish Government which puts both teachers and pupils under pressure. Pressure that no 5 year-old, should be facing. I support the motion. 

______

Media Coverage






 The Scotsman 


 Herald Scotland


  
The Telegraph
 




Thursday, 13 December 2018

Communication - Are We Being Inclusive?

Last week I attended an elected members event over in West Lothian on the topic of Inclusive Communication. The workshop was run by Sense Scotland - http://www.sensescotland.org.uk
So, who are they? -
 Sense Scotland is a charity set up by the parents of Deafblind children some 30 years ago.

Until last week's workshop I considered I was someone who was pretty good at communicating - anyone who knows me, knows me to be vocal, opinionated and confidents in expressing my opinions through either the spoken or written word. However, how do we communicate our message to someone who may have a barrier to traditional (or perhaps, typical) methods of communication? To begin with I would state that over the past 20 years I have communicated with individuals on a fairly regularly basis who have and do experienced barriers to regular channels of communications. My best friend at university (who I haven't seen so much in recent years but who is still a friend) was visually impaired. She had been sighted until around 16 year old when her eyesight rapidly deteriorated leaving her over 90% blind. That was my first experience of spending time around a person with barriers to communicate. I quickly learned the skills of guiding and the dos and do nots of shopping, partying and hanging out with a blind person - yes, they do require assistance but no the assistant in the shop or the guy in the bar doesn't need to speak to me when she has a question - being blind does not mean needing a voice to buy you a coffee. I also learned the perceptions of others who are unsure and uncertain of how to approach anyone with a communication barrier. My friend was working through her final year when advised that the university did not think she was quite ready to graduate as her blindness meant she would not be able to absorb the tough work load. It was not her though who wasn't ready it was them - the university. Their lack of suitable software, readers, adaptations was what was going to cause the delay not her lack of ability. In the end she won the battle and graduated at the same time as the rest of us and from that day on has never let her visual impairment hold her back and has now risen to a very senior position in a well known multinational. 
Over the past 20 years I have met other individuals who have experienced barriers to communicate, I had a friend who was deaf, another who is partially sighted and having spend the best part of 3 years teaching children with a variety of additional support needs (ASN) I am well versed in how one form of communication does not fit all. Having also traveled extensively to parts of the world where English is not the mother tongue of the majority of the population I have been aware of the need to vary my tone, my sentence structure, my accent and the speed at which I speak. As a teacher you use your voice to get the message across, your eyes to ensure you have everyone on task and your ears to ensure the classroom is not distracted.  Therefore, with all those experiences I thought I was pretty damn good at communicating to everyone! 

Well I realised that was possibly not the case. Sense Scotland provided us with a definition of Inclusive Communication - "sharing information in a way that everybody can understand". 

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

P1 SNSA - Scrutiny Committee

Following writing about the Council motion and amendments to request Fife withdraw from SNSA in P1 - due to the many and varied reasons expressed by teaching staff, headteachers, unions and parents across Scotland and the 700+ responses released in the Freedom of Information request, seeing the Council decision to withdraw voted down at the Education & Children's Services Committee (E&CS), we reached today (still with me?). 

Whilst an amendment was presented at the E&CS Committee the religious representatives voted with the SNP group meaning the amendment failed to pass. Given the outcome of the Council vote which requested a withdrawal, if possible this result was therfore seen as questionable. The amendment put forward was:

Councillor Helen Law, seconded by Councillor Kathleen Leslie, moved that:- 
* This Committee notes a decision of full Council in regard to SNSA assessment in P1 in Fife and agrees to suspend undertaking SNSA P1 pending the outcome of the National Review. 
* Committee recommends to the Scottish Government as part of the Review all P1 staff should be consulted and allowed to contribute anonymously. 
* That Fife has a positive record on education and raising attainment. 
* The Committee agrees to return to the PIPs assessment in Fife. 

The motion passed at the E&CS Committee arrived at the Scrutiny Committee due to my colleague Cllr Richard Watt requesting a call-in following that decision. This required the support of 20 councillors, which he received (cross-party). Therefore, it had to be discussed further. 

Here are the links to my previous comments on P1 SNSA:




This morning the Scrutiny Committee met and although I am not a member of that Committee I was nominated to speak in place of the person who placed the call-in. I was given 5 minutes to present, what I (and others) believe are the arguments against P1 SNSA, the content of the officers report to the E&CS Committee - and the potential implications (or otherwise) if Fife was to withdraw. 

The amendment at full Council in October requested that Fife withdraw, if possible. It asked for a report by officers on this. We were presented with a report which nowhere said we could not withdraw. There was a discussion around the legal framework, if somewhat ambiguous in places, it did not anywhere say it was not possible to withdraw. We know that not all local authorities are carrying out these tests but more to the point there is nothing in the legislation that makes such assessment compulsory (this was clarified in the Scottish Government's own missive to local authorities in September).

The motion noted noted that it disagreed with the E&CS Committee decision and referred it back to full Council. 

I believe this was the correct outcome and I thank all councillors who supported and voted for this motion and all those who supported the call-in. 

Here are some of the key points from this morning - the text of what I said to the Scrutiny Committee follows (and covers in more detail).

The  text of the motion I presented is at the bottom of this post. along with some additional key points which are listed here: 

1. An argument was presented that 1,872 pupils had not yet sat SNSA in P1 and would somehow "miss out" - my response is - if something is not working then you do not continue with it for the sake of continuing. Secondly, SNSA only assesses around 5% of the CfE level data. 

2. The data is passed back to teachers - we know this does not always happen. We also know that parents, in surveys conducted, have noted that they are often in the dark about this assessment - one survey showed 70% of parents did not know when their child was doing SNSA.

3. There was a comment that the data was for here in Fife and not going back to the Scottish Government - if that is the case then why was it stated that Fife feeds in around 7% of the data and why call it "standardised" if it is not? One of the key points previously made was this would provide data for the national picture - so which is it? Does it or does it not?

4. The tests can be done anytime and don't take too much time - on the Scottish Government's own User Review it states that literacy takes an average of 44mins and numeracy 32mins - revealing why they have taken up so much time, keeping a P1 sitting for that long is not an easy feat for anyone. 

5. There was a comment that "improvements" could be made - lets remember this - thousands of trial test questions were run in schools prior to the roll-out. Any problems should have been flagged up then. Additionally, the point was made that the User Review was replacing questions but this was being done prior to that so that is not an argument. 

6. In addition to me presenting, the Convenor of the E&CS Committee also did as did an EIS representative and then members of the Committee were invited to ask questions of us and of officers.   It then proceeded to a motion and amendment. The motion was presented by the Labour group and supported by 3 of the 4 political groups, the SNP presented an amendment - keen were they to hold-up another half-baked and failing policy by their political leaders at Holyrood. 

7. That the cross-party vote at Holyrood was irrelevant to this - no, that was due to the evidence that MSPs had (and which continues to grow) - as councillors, we are also representing the electorate and the majority of the electorate here in Fife voted for parties which do not support P1 SNSA.

Statement to the Scrutiny Committee:

Curriculum for Excellence is built around five levels. The first level being the Early Years – which includes the two years before a child goes to school and Primary 1. This was understood to be a play-based learning philosophy – something which parent led body, Connect believes is being lost they have stated – “SNSA continues the formalisation of the early level of the curriculum to the detriment of many.”

On 6th November the Education & Children’s Services Committee examined the agenda item on SNSA following an amendment passed at Council on 4thOctober. This amendment was supported by 3 of the 4 political groups and called for a withdrawal of participation in SNSA for P1 children, if possible. 

This decision was based on growing international evidence, the voices of classroom teachers and some SMT that had been shared in an FOI request, written and verbal communication with elected representatives across Scotland, dialogue with trade unions and organisations such as Upstart Scotland and Connect (Scottish Parent Teacher Council). 

Very explicit examples of concerns about SNSA here in Fife are within the 700 pages of the FOI request. For the benefit of anyone present today who has not read any of these responses I will provide you with a quote from Fife:

It is not an overstatement to say that I feel I have betrayed relationships and harmed them with our children, particularly our most vulnerable, by putting them through these tests. They are completely inappropriate.”

I would ask that you look at the feedback – this is only one example of many. 

Whilst claims of distressed children have been dismissed by more than one councillor I would direct them to the Scottish Government’s own SNSA User Review which notes at paragraph 30: “Some teachers reported that children found the assessments upsetting.”

There were 4 points to the amendment which was duly voted for by a majority of councillors. For the purposes of today the second and third bullet points, as referenced in these papers at 1.2 & 1.3 will form the basis of the argument that the decision made at Committee was incorrect.  1.1 notes play based assessment and 1.4 was a request made on which I am sure we are all looking forward to being briefed on at the next Council meeting. 

1.2. noted concerns raised by teachers and parents about the introduction of SNSA, the view of the Scottish Parliament and already adopted approaches to assessment in Fife. If we examine the report brought to Committee 2.1.3 states around one third of primary HTs were asked to respond to the experiences in their schools. 2.1.5 & 2.1.6 provide a carefully selected list of “positive” and “less positive” responses. What the report does not provide is explicit concerns of parents and teachers – “less positive” could imply “negative” but are a world away from the feedback in the FOI – a quote in it from Fife which possibly gives a little insight is “dreadful. A serious impact. We struggled for weeks”.Or another “literacy was far too difficult and not in line with benchmarks”.And “there was far too much reading before a question was asked”.

The Scottish Parliament which is the legislative body in Scotland passed a motion in September which noted “the level of concern that has been raised by teachers and other educational professionals regarding the introduction and delivery of new testing arrangements for Primary 1 pupils…and that, in light of these concerns, calls on the Scottish Government to halt the tests in P1.”

This was passed by all opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament – or to put it another way – it was passed by those representing over 50% of the electorate. Yet, this local authority report fails to make mention of the vote by Scotland’s parliament. 

1.3 is where we get to the nub of the matter. At full Council the majority of councillors voted that they “believe(s) that Fife should withdraw from participation in SNSA for P1 children” – that is explicit. This statement added the postscript “if possible” – is it possible? Yes, the Directorate frames this in its own response. Having sought legal advice there are two key points they note. The first is that there is “there are no specific regulations enacted or statutory guidance issued imposing a legal duty to carry out P1 SNSA.” Instead it was “anticipated that education authorities would therefore adopt the assessment scheme without the need for regulations imposing these”. That of course would require an amendment to the Education Act as the Education Secretary in his missive to local authorities of 4thSeptember provides advice that “SNSAs, in common with virtually all aspects of the Scottish curriculum and its delivery, are not provided for in legislation. This means that they cannot be seen as compulsory” – 1.3 asks to halt P1 SNSA if possible – clearly it is. 

The report states that the Council would have to demonstrate that it had evidence that such “withdrawal was a reasonable and proportionate step” and also “demonstrate that it had alternative means of assessing the children it is obliged to educate.” 

The Directorate’s own response notes that P1 “SNSA appears to be the least strong and effective of all the year groups at which SNSA is undertaken”. It also states that “a significant number of schools remain to be convinced of the immediate advantages of using SNSA at P1”.  It does not state that withdrawal would not be a reasonable and proportionate step. More evidence would need to have been provided.

Does Fife have an alternative means of assessing the children it is obliged to educate? Yes, it does. A tried and tested method which not only assessed literacy and numeracy as SNSA does but which looked at cognitive, physical and emotional development in a child in P1, these tests were also far shorter. The report claims that the new assessment will produce potentially highly valuable information that will accord with national standards but it is difficult to feel convinced by this claim when Scotland’s largest teaching union states that at best they assess between 5% and 10% of the skill set covered in P1. Indeed, it is deeply troubling to note that the Scottish Government’s own User Review data indicates the majority of tests nationally were taken in May (over 16,000 assessments in one day) – a criticism that is also noted in comments received from Fife teachers in the FOI that they were instructed when to carry out the assessments. And I quote – “All pupils have to complete them in May regardless of readiness.”

To conclude – “Council believes that Fife should withdraw from participation in SNSA for P1 if possible” – there is nothing in this report to state it is not possible. 


Link to Scrutiny Committee papers can be found here:














Monday, 19 November 2018

Business Education - Is This The End For The Department?

Earlier this year I wrote about my concerns following cuts to high school budgets in Fife by the SNP-Labour Administration at the Council. Of particular concern was the future of the Business Education Department at Queen Anne High School in Dunfermline. I was made aware of a plan that would see the future of the department under threat of closure. 


Following the Summer break and the beginning of the Autumn term the question came up again. Despite writing to the Education & Children's Services Directorate (most recently waiting over 3 weeks for a reply) I have still received no assurance that this vital department will remain open. Indeed, the possibility of closure appears to be quite definite judging by the evasive responses I have had. 

Two weeks ago I brought the matter to the attention of the local media again and following on from that I was contacted by a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament who has now set up a petition. At this stage I would absolutely urge any concerned parent or affected pupil to contact both the school and the Education Directorate and seek an assurance that the department will remain open.




The link can be found here: https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/17218463.queen-anne-high-fears-for-future-of-business-subject/?ref=mr&lp=9

Last week I followed this up with a letter to the Dunfermline Press

Dear Sir 

Last week I once again raised concerns about the future of the Business Education Department at QAHS (DP 8/11/18). Having finally received a belated reply from Head of Education & Children’s Services, Shelagh McLean it appears there is still no clarification. 

I note that Phil Black has commented that “Queen Anne has a rich curriculum, fully in line with national expectations and there are no plans to change that.” By that I would then presume he must mean the Business Education Department will continue to run during the next academic year then?

The department, I have been informed, has a cohort of nearly 30 National 5 pupils who should have the opportunity to return and study Administration Financial Services or Business Management. It also has National 4 pupils who may choose to work towards National 5 next year and of course, a Higher class who would also have the opportunity to progress to Advanced Higher – which would be of specific importance for some university entrance requirements.

Therefore, to continue with this “rich curriculum” surely that must mean the opportunity for pupils to continue to study throughout the senior phase subjects within the Business Education Department? 

I would urge any concerned parents and affected pupils to ask for clarification that this vital subject will continue to run. 

Mr Black states that “the school already offers a range of subjects not offered elsewhere”, if Business Education is to cease, Queen Anne High School will be the only high school in Fife not to run this range of subjects. 

 Yours






There is now a petition to keep the Business Education Department open. The link can be found at:


About Me