YESTERDAY, the latest (and last) Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy (SSLN) data was published by the Scottish Government and, once again, the news is not good.
On the positive side of things, reading levels appear to have remained roughly stable over the past two years, as have pupils’ listening and talking skills (although the accurate assessment of the latter is extremely problematic).
The real headline data, then, comes from the writing section of the survey.
Of obvious concern here is the fact that 16 per cent of S2 pupils are apparently not working within the appropriate curricular level for writing, an increase of 4 percentage points since 2014. That is certainly a shocking and unacceptable situation but, as always with education statistics, caution is warranted.
It is important to note that the S2 data is in fact referenced against S3 benchmarks, meaning that children are, for the purposes of a genuine comparison across different stages, being assessed a year early. John Swinney is right to point out that by the end of S3 this figure will undoubtedly have improved.
It is also the case that the writing assessment specifically focuses on cross-curricular literacy work in a way that other aspects of the SSLN do not, with pupils’ work in classes other than English being graded.
The SSLN report itself makes clear that this is a particularly challenging area and it means the bar is in some ways higher for the writing section of the SSLN than it is for others.
But that’s not to say that there is no cause for concern. While writing performance at P4 level has remained stable, the official report clearly states that “performance of P7 and S2 pupils declined by seven and 15 percentage points respectively, between 2012 and 2016.” Though some of this shift can probably be explained by assessment judgements bedding in over time, as well as issues around the methodology, there is no question that the overall trend in Scottish literacy is negative.
Both John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon will come under pressure as a result of this data – as they should. There are few who seriously contest the notion that SNP education (and arguably taxation) policy has, at best, exacerbated the problems faced by schools. It is also important, however, to look at this issue within its proper social context of austerity economics and the resulting rise in poverty.
More than a quarter of children in this country now live in relative poverty. In the last year the Trussel Trust has reported a 9 per cent increase in the use of its food banks across Scotland, with nearly 50,000 children now being helped by this charity alone. Factors like inflation, welfare cuts and precarious, poorly paid employment affect children at least as much as their parents, and any teacher will be able to explain the impact of such factors on a pupil’s performance in school.
There are cultural factors to be highlighted as well. Buried near the bottom of the SSLN report is one particularly heart-breaking statistic: 26 per cent of P4 children hardly ever, or never, have someone at home who reads with them. That needs to change, and fast.
Unfortunately (though unsurprisingly) Swinney has already attempted to spin the SSLN data as evidence that his government’s reforms – most notably the imposition of national standardised testing and changes to school governance – must be followed through. He is wrong.
Blowing millions of pounds on pointless tests, as well as a distracting and unwanted reorganisation of Scottish education, will do nothing to improve literacy and numeracy rates, nor will it put a dent in the atrocious levels of educational inequality that blight our society.
The urge for the Government to be seen to be doing something is understandable but it would surely make more sense to focus on things that might actually work: replacing the thousands of teachers and support staff lost over the last 10 years; reducing teachers’ class contact time, and the level of bureaucracy they face, to allow them to do their jobs properly; and working to ensure that every child in the country has access not just to a school library, but to a librarian.
These are the sorts of reforms that, alongside tackling the poverty at the root of our problems, could really make a difference.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel