Frank Gerstenberg: Cutting budgets can add up to a better education

IT'S AMAZING what a shortage of cash can achieve. We'd all like to have more money in our pockets and when we have it, we tend not to think too hard about priorities.

It's only when we run out of cash that we start to think about whether there might be a more effective way of doing things.

One of my daughters phoned one day and asked what I would think if she became a teacher. At the time she was earning megabucks in London, so I drew a deep breath and said that she would earn less than a quarter of her current salary. There was a long silence, and then she said: "But Dad, you can't live on that." I will not spoil your day with what I said in reply.

Within two years she was training to teach in California, and quickly adapted her lifestyle and reappraised her priorities – and she loves her job. For far too long, successive governments have thought that the answer to our educational ills was to pour more and more money into our schools – that was bound to produce results. It hasn't, and it won't.

But in the past few weeks three things have happened which suggest that at long last some green shoots are breaking through, and that a different approach might finally produce some positive results.

The first, of course, is the recession, and a growing awareness that money no longer grows on trees. Education is not immune from that fashionable four- letter word, "cuts". They've got to come, and come soon, and there will be squeals from every corner of the educational establishment. But the great thing about having to cut is that one has to reassess one's priorities, and look at different ways of doing things.

This brings us to the second development – the appointment of Michael Russell as education minister. His predecessor had shown scant appreciation of the dire situation we find ourselves in, but Mr Russell appears to be prepared to think the unthinkable.

Whereas the Labour opposition immediately disassociated itself from East Lothian Council's proposal to set up trust schools, Mr Russell did not. Whereas his predecessor, Fiona Hyslop, refused to back down in the face of calls to delay the introduction of the Curriculum for Excellence, Mr Russell appears to be adopting a more conciliatory approach. And whereas everyone in the educational establishment continued to say that our schools were doing a great job, Mr Russell has been prepared to accept that many are not.

That brings us conveniently to the third development – the recent publication of the appalling statistics relating to the literacy levels of primary school pupils. It is a national disgrace that almost two-thirds of our children have been found to be below an acceptable level in these basic skills.

Many parents seem to feel that our primary schools are doing all right and that problems only arise in secondary school. They could not be more wrong. Indeed, if children's literacy skills are not developed adequately in primary school, it is hardly surprising that they will struggle in secondary school.

We can spend millions trying to deal with discipline, bullying and truancy in our secondary schools, but if the basics are not dealt with in our primary schools, then most of these millions will be wasted.

Mr Russell seemed to be genuinely shaken by these statistics and, hopefully, his colleagues in government will be, too. It would have been reasonable to blame the previous administration, had not the present one continued almost blindly with its policies. But now there is an opportunity to change tack, particularly when throwing money at the problem is not an option.

During the trendy Sixties and Seventies, the child was "king" in educational terms; there was a huge shift towards child-centred education. It didn't work. Then the curriculum became "king", with a host of initiatives, including "ten to 14", "five to 14" and now the Curriculum for Excellence. Of course the curriculum is important, but it has ignored children's needs. We can go on for ever tampering with the curriculum, but until we recognise that children need to acquire a corpus of knowledge, an ability to learn, and the ability to think for themselves, then standards will not rise. And the greatest of these is knowledge. Skills are all very well and must have their place, but we neglect the acquisition of knowledge at our peril.

And what has happened to learning by rote? Perhaps it was over done during the first half of the 20th century, but our children now rarely learn anything by heart – quite unlike most their European neighbours, who learn a huge amount by heart, much of which stays with them for the rest of their lives.

There has been a great emphasis over recent decades on ensuring that our children are prepared for the world of work. That is not the purpose of education – it is the purpose of training, which is too often confused with education. Ironically, we are not even achieving the aim of preparing our young people for work – one after another, employers are complaining about their lack of basic skills.

There has also been a worrying trend away from studying the more academically demanding subjects, such as sciences and languages, to trendier subjects, such as drama and media studies.

Above all, we require a return to the rigour which used to be the hallmark of a Scottish education. The Curriculum for Excellence is not pointing in that direction, nor are our present examinations – only the blindest observer would not accept that our examinations have become less rigorous. Teaching methods, too, could involve demanding more of our pupils, while teacher training should be radically reviewed.

None of this will require extra millions. There is always room for cutting budgets without cutting standards – just ask the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport.

Mr Russell has a great opportunity to make his mark on Scotland's schools. He has made a good start by recognising that all is not rosy. He should now go further and slay a few more sacred cows.

• Frank Gerstenberg is a former principal of George Watson's College