How to put Scotland in a class of its own

AS THE media limber up for the election, it would be wise not to take a leaf out of the BBC's book.

Not only have BBC bosses ridden rough-shod over the corporation's obligations and traditions by insisting on England-only debates for a UK-wide election, they have also started broadcasting a series of "policy specials", the first of which featured an education debate of no relevance to Scotland whatsoever, given that the participants – Ed Balls, Michael Gove and David Laws – could have, and will have, no responsibility for any part of Scottish education.

Scots concerns were reduced to a single line of voice-over – an insulting travesty of balance.

Education is a fully devolved policy area. Our system of vetting those who work with children is different and more proportionate. Early-years activity has developed distinctive new attributes, including a much closer integration of various disciplines, and our higher education sector is working in the full knowledge that this government will not introduce student top-up fees. This further strengthens the SNP pledge to restore the Scottish tradition of free access to an excellent education.

Most strikingly of all, our schools operate, as they have done for years, within a clear local authority delivery structure and without a rigid national curriculum. Much of that system still works well.

But there are problems which need solutions. As a nation, we are not moving forward in the international educational league tables, while others are. At local level, too, many young people still fail to meet their full potential in and out of school.

The Curriculum for Excellence is tackling these issues. My recent proposals about fine-tuning it and supporting those who teach it and those who benefit from it will mean – among other things – that literacy and numeracy will be assessed from the start of primary school against rigorous criteria that test breadth and depth of knowledge and skills and how well these can be applied.

What is taught and how it is taught are at least as important as where it is taught.

What I saw two weeks ago in Finland convinced me that getting a broad national consensus on ensuring the highest quality of teaching would be a worthwhile prize; as would having confidence in the professionalism of teachers and giving them the tools to evaluate and improve their teaching, coupled with a greater degree of educational management autonomy in schools.

However, much of the press and political attention that the trip gathered was directed to studying in minute detail whether or not the so-called Swedish "free schools" might be suitable for import.

In reality, Scotland's educational performance is marginally better than Sweden's. That country has much greater difficulties in recruiting teachers and, by its own admission, its curriculum is in need of major reform. So, while "free schools" have certainly helped individual attainment in some circumstances, they are no means a panacea for driving up national standards.

I therefore believe that the first-order question for the educational debate in Scotland needs to be about how we develop diversity to ensure greater autonomy, so that every school can deliver the most effective and flexible curriculum to the highest standard and in a way that allows every pupil to fulfil his or her potential.

A second-order question is how those delivery mechanisms, in a time of great pressure on public resources, can operate more efficiently and effectively.

The Labour proposal which envisages a small number of education boards seems more about that second point than the first. But I don't believe the priority is to buttress central control to achieve a firmer grip on what happens locally, including direct financial control of each school's budget. Such imposed uniformity goes against what teachers, headteachers and parents tell me they want and need, which is the flexibility to make local decisions within a supporting structure that can allocate finance fairly and take strategic decisions.

However, a trust model – as may arise from the developing work being done in East Lothian – might free up local initiative and involve local people more than the present model. It could also provide a more efficient use of resources, while still sourcing key services from a central point. It is, of course, possible that a joint board model might have similar potential, but only if it streamlined strategic management and back-office functions while creating more space for individual schools to meet their own challenges.

All contributions to this debate are welcome. I am particularly keen to encourage local authorities themselves to look at new ways of fulfilling their statutory educational responsibilities.

I can see no harm in a number of types of school organisation em-erging from authorities that spread good practice. Insisting on one size fitting all would close down that dynamic for change, whereas what we need now is to open it up.

• Michael Russell is the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.