Agenda item 6 is on petition PE457, which is from Ms Dorothy Baird and calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to bring Steiner Waldorf education into the publicly funded sector as a matter of priority. Members have a copy of the petition. I am interested in their initial comments.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Steiner Waldorf Education (PE457)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Karen Gillon Lab 6
- Michael Russell SNP 3
- Irene McGugan SNP 3
- Jackie Baillie Lab 1
- Ian Jenkins LD 1
The record
15 contributionsMembers can take a position on the matter. The position that my colleague Irene McGugan and I take on behalf of the SNP is that Steiner Waldorf education is a good thing and we accept the argument for the proposed practice, which is common in other parts of the world and in the European Union. I made that clear at our education policy launch in August this year.If members do not think that the proposal is a good thing, they can say so easily, but it is not in the committee's competence to do anything about it, particularly at this stage in the session.
Should we note the petition?
link
I suggest that we note the petition. The national debate on education and the committee's parallel purposes-of-education inquiry provided two opportunities for the petitioners to make their points about the value or otherwise of such education. Those are more appropriate forums at which to consider to the matter, at which we consider the future of education as a whole, rather than as separate parts.
Do members agree to note the petition?Members indicated agreement.
I have said on the record that Steiner Waldorf education has great value, particularly in the early years—in kindergarten. I am interested in how the ideas behind such education can be given a fair wind in the state system.Our papers ask whether Steiner Waldorf people could work within the national priorities and the state system structures. As Jackie Baillie says, such discussions might be better conducted in the national debate on education, our purposes-of-education inquiry and the follow-up to that. With those comments, I agree that we should note the petition.
The arguments that the Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made for not supporting the petition display flawed logic.
We can debate the petition's merits or demerits, but I caution members that we have said that we are noting the petition. If we debate the demerits or otherwise of responses to the petition, we will have to hold a wider debate. I do not think that members want to do that.
Actually, Ian Jenkins mentioned the point that I intended to make. He referred to the concern that Steiner Waldorf schools could not accommodate the national framework for education and the national priorities.
Irene McGugan disputes that assertion.
Exactly.
I accept that. We will note the petition. I suggest that we refer the petitioners to the Executive's national debate on education and encourage them to continue to be involved in it as fully as possible.
We should refer the petitioners to our inquiry, for which I believe they gave evidence.
Are members content with the proposal?Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 15:44.
In this meeting
Everything on 5 Nov 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sport Committee Tuesday 5 November 2002 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- Scotland's Museums Evidence session · 113
- Scotland's Languages Committee business · 16
- Petitions Petitions · 10
- Petitions Petitions · 26
- Petitions Petitions · 15
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.