All the major political parties in Scotland place education high on their agendas. But to what extent do they offer radically different proposals? What are the principles underpinning the strategies they recommend? Are there areas of policy that are marginalised or omitted altogether? Do they make good use of research evidence or are they driven more by political expediency? Some leverage on these questions can be gained by examining the party manifestos for the 2016 election to the Scottish Parliament.

One of the most striking features of the SNP, Labour and Conservative manifestos is their use of economic discourse to promote their ideas. Labour, for example, states that “investing in education is our most important economic policy” and the words “invest” and “investment” appear no fewer than 89 times in its manifesto.

The language of economics is softened to a degree by references to fairness, justice and equality, but there is a hard edge to the documents, with many mentions of skills, enterprise and growth. The notion of education as something worthwhile in itself, for its own sake, does not surface.

There are strong similarities in some of the policy proposals. All parties want to improve childcare and provision for early years. None of them make explicit reference to the need to link this to adult education: the idea that parents with poor literacy and numeracy skills themselves will be unable to provide the kind of support needed to give their children a good start in life.

There is general agreement about the need to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their wealthier peers, but there are differences of opinion on the best way to achieve this.

The SNP places its faith in the benefits to be gained from the Attainment Scotland Fund, distributing money to schools and local authorities in areas of high deprivation.

Labour promises to “end educational inequality in a generation”. Meanwhile, the Conservatives call for “clear, independent and transparent data” to measure the progress of pupils. The Green Party offers a note of caution, stating that the quality of learning is more important than grades.

There is less agreement on where the Scottish educational system now stands internationally.

The Liberal Democrats are the most critical: “Our once-proud educational system is slipping down the international performance league.” The SNP claims to have “transformed education” but acknowledges that “we need to do more”. For the Conservatives, the answer is strong leadership, with schools freed from some of the bureaucratic constraints of local government.

Don’t upset the teachers

In its manifesto, the Green Party claims that it will bring “fresh, new, bold ideas to Parliament”. It wants to foster curiosity and creativity among school pupils, and, like the Lib Dems, it seeks to “roll back the top-down, target-driven, one-size-fits-all culture that distorts our public services”.

Interestingly, however, no party describes its education policies as “radical”, perhaps indicating a fear of alienating teachers, some of whom feel that they have been on the receiving end of too many reforms.

Taken together, the manifestos are best regarded as tactical and negotiated documents. They have been drawn up from a range of sources and are intended for a variety of audiences. As well as being based on internal party discussions, they have been informed by representations from many stakeholders.

Only the Labour document lists the organisations that have helped to shape their recommendations. There is little evidence that the work of educational researchers has played much part in the process. The Conservatives, however, do emphasise the need to “improve evaluative research” as one means of determining future policy.

No party describes its education policies as ‘radical’, perhaps indicating a fear of alienating teachers

However, there are some striking evasions and omissions in all of the documents. Although figures are quoted for spending on particular projects, it is impossible for readers to gain a sense of the overall education budget and how it is to be divided between the various sectors. This enables the parties to fudge hard decisions.

For example, if extra resources are to be given to early years, should some of the money come from higher education? Making such a case would, however, risk a fight with the powerful higher education lobby, especially given the current pressures to widen access to universities.

Two potentially sensitive topics are ignored by all of the parties. No mention is made of faith schools, even if only to confirm that the current position of denominational schools, established under the 1918 Education Act, will remain. Moreover, with the arrival in Scotland of an increasing number of migrants and refugees, there is some demand for state-funded Muslim schools. Shouldn’t the manifestos have offered us some thoughts on this?

And similarly, the independent sector does not feature in any of the party manifestos. It is a small sector across the country as a whole, but there are wide regional variations. In Edinburgh, nearly 25 per cent of pupils attend independent schools. Many proceed to prestigious universities and enter high-status professions.

From time to time, questions are asked about how this sits alongside claims about the democratic and egalitarian nature of the Scottish educational tradition. Opening up this territory might be risky for politicians. Whatever the reason, all parties kept the subject off the policy agenda.

Short of inspiration

The style of all the manifestos is dull and prosaic. Writing about political language in 1946, George Orwell observed that it rarely offered “a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of phrase”. He added that it consisted largely of “euphemism, question begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”.

These criticisms remain valid for the 2016 election manifestos. They rely far too much on tired formulations and jaded rhetoric. It is not possible to detect a single, coherent narrative in any of them. They allow for multiple interpretations, depending on the perspective of the reader. All parties seem trapped in a dead style that, in the words of John Codd, embodies “incoherences, distortions, structured omissions and negations”.

Generalised enthusiasm for the values and purposes of education is not enough - it needs to be translated into well-conceived, consistent policies and expressed in language that persuades and inspires.

Walter Humes is an honorary professor at the University of Stirling’s Faculty of Social Sciences