The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15955, in the name of Alexander Stewart, on additional support needs in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges that, in Scotland, additional support needs (ASN) is a term used to describe the requirements for an estimated 190,000 children and young people, or 26.6% of all school pupils, who require extra help to reach their full learning potential; believes that ASN can include having motor or sensory impairments, learning difficulties such as dyslexia, English as an additional language or a myriad of emotional and social difficulties; notes that all schools have a duty to provide appropriate support and that this requirement was laid out in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004; further notes that the Additional Support for Learning: Statutory Guidance 2017 sets out that schools have a number of responsibilities to support pupils who have ASN, such as making adequate and efficient provision for the support required, publishing, reviewing and updating specified information about their ASN policy, providing the parents of the pupils with all of the information that they are required to publish, providing, where needed, co-ordinated support plans for the pupils, and keeping this under regular review, and providing independent and free mediation services for parents and pupils, including publishing information about these services; believes that, with the right resources and focus, schools and further education settings, including those in Stirling and Clackmannanshire, can create a whole-school environment with an emphasis on inclusion and cooperation and delivering high aspirations; further believes that social and emotional skills programmes, which aim to build resilience through learning or coordinated support plans, can build skills step by step to bring success and give pupils with ASN a chance to test their skills out and receive encouragement and feedback, developing inclusiveness that can be encouraged through good quality health and wellbeing lessons, promoting relationships and diversity, supporting pupils to feel accepted and to belong; believes that, in addition to myriad other ambitions, they can help to deal with, and reduce, bullying and discrimination, and notes the calls that, in order for all pupils with ASN to benefit in full from their education, the support that they receive should be tailored to meet their individual needs and build on their strengths to help them overcome any difficulties that they experience.
17:17
I am pleased to be able to bring this important issue to the chamber, and I thank those members who supported my motion.
When it comes to Scotland’s education system, many of the Scottish National Party’s failures are well known. Those include a decline in international rankings, a widening attainment gap and falling teacher numbers, all of which have been discussed in the chamber many times.
However, the Government’s failure on the issue of additional support needs deserves far more parliamentary time. My motion lays bare the crisis that is developing in Scottish schools for children and young people who have ASN. Last month’s report from Audit Scotland, entitled “Additional support for learning”, painted a truly grim picture. The number of young people who are recorded as receiving additional support for learning is now higher than 284,000. Why is that? It is because we have much better diagnosis, but diagnosis requires support and assistance. That figure not only represents 40 per cent of all pupils in Scotland; it is an eightfold increase from where we were when the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 was passed. The number of those who are being supported is already high, but councils expect it to rise even further, and that means that funding is needed.
The Audit Scotland report highlights the poor situation with data, which means that the scale of the problem is not fully understood. We should also acknowledge that the issue is complex, as ASN pupils can include those who have motor or sensory impairments or learning difficulties and issues such as dyslexia, as well as those who experience emotional or social difficulties. The fact remains, however, that every one of those ASN pupils is a young person who needs extra help to reach their full potential, and the Government is failing catastrophically on that.
Audit Scotland’s report highlights that young people who are receiving ASL are at a disadvantage. Their rate of attendance at school is lower than average, and individuals with ASN are
“five times more likely to be excluded from school”.
Their performance in literacy and numeracy is much lower, and they have less of an opportunity to reach those positive destinations that we hear so much about from the Scottish Government. Without that opportunity, they cannot get to a positive destination.
The report is a truly damning assessment, but the Scottish Government should have known about those issues for many years, because this is not the first time that we have heard about the situation. Back in 2020, the report of the Morgan review of additional support for learning, “Support for Learning: All our Children and All their Potential”, highlighted that the issue was simply not a priority for the Scottish Government’s education system. It also highlighted the problems with the 2004 ASN act and its implementation, which it described as “fragmented” and “inconsistent”.
The review also spoke about a failure of cultures, whereby people saw
“Additional Support for Learning... as ‘Somebody else’s problem’ and ‘not their responsibility’.”
The review spoke about the countless parents and carers who feel so badly let down on the issue. Many of these individuals felt that their concerns about their young people were “ignored or dismissed”, and they felt hurt as a result. Teachers and support assistants said that they felt “under siege” and undervalued.
Back in 2020, more than 30 per cent of children needed support. ASN was a big issue five years ago, but it is an even bigger issue today. Audit Scotland points out that the Government has made very little progress against several of the recommendations from the 2020 report. In December’s budget, the Government finally committed to funding a £29 million ASN plan. However, across 32 local authorities—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
I am listening intently to Mr Stewart’s contribution. Can he explain why his party voted against the additional £29 million that was in the Scottish Government’s budget to support additional support needs in our schools?
The complete budget, including other aspects, was not good for Scotland. In any case, how can £29 million support 32 local authorities? It is a drop in the ocean when it comes to support for those individuals.
Will the member take an intervention?
Absolutely.
I am grateful to Alexander Stewart for taking an intervention while he is making a passionate speech about his powerful motion. Does he agree that it is perhaps disingenuous of the cabinet secretary, in a members’ business debate, to express disgruntlement or to seek accord over a budget vote when the budget was passed in any event? Notwithstanding that, as the member rightly set out, £29 million does not even reach the sides of what is required for ASN.
I thank Mr Whitfield for that intervention, and I agree with him on all those aspects.
As I said, £29 million across 32 local authorities is a drop in the ocean. In addition, when we dig deeper, it appears that there is no real ASN plan at all. Actions speak louder than words, and it is quite obvious that, for the SNP Government, this issue is a low priority.
I hope that this debate will give the issue the spotlight that it deserves, and provide an opportunity for members across the chamber to talk about their constituencies and regions and highlight what is happening. However, we need more than just a spotlight on the issue—we need action.
The SNP Government must listen to every one of Audit Scotland’s recommendations, including on the collection of data, workforce planning and funding levels. Those aspects are vitally important if we are to help and support these individuals. The Government must do much more to slow down, and reverse, the current trend, but that requires support.
Most of all, the Scottish Government should listen to the children and young people themselves. In the Morgan report back in 2020, young people said that they wanted to be involved in the decision-making process. Many young people know what things work for them and what kind of support they need. However, that listening process has not happened as matters have progressed.
Individuals should not be defined by their additional support needs, as many of them believe that they currently are. If the Scottish Government truly wants to improve outcomes for young people, it has to start listening to them.
In conclusion, the issue must be treated with the gravity that it deserves, and our hard-working teachers and support staff must be empowered to tackle the issue—otherwise, a whole generation of young people risk failing to reach their full potential. We should ensure that they all reach their potential. We, in the Parliament, will be watching, and I hope that the SNP Government is listening. Councils should look forward to support, which they must have, and teachers and support assistants need clarity, but most of all these young people need time, support and resource, or nothing will change for them.
17:25
I thank Alexander Stewart for bringing the debate to the chamber and for lodging the motion, which highlights that more than one in four pupils in Scotland are estimated to have an additional support need. That figure demonstrates how important it is that we improve additional learning support for pupils across the country.
Mr Stewart’s motion also refers to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004 and the statutory guidance on additional support for learning from 2017. However, although that legislation and guidance is in place, I share Mr Stewart’s concerns, and those of my colleagues, about how additional learning support is delivered in practice. I raised that point during the ASN debate that was held in the chamber on 25 September last year. I go back to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s “Additional Support for Learning inquiry report”, which was debated that day, and I again highlight paragraph 29, which states:
“Many responses to the call for views contained details of negative personal experiences, including parents and carers having to ‘fight’ to get support for their child and some disturbing accounts of the impact on children and young people with ASN’s health and mental wellbeing.”
Sadly, that reflects the experiences of many Inverclyde families. It is with deep regret that families feel that they need to fight to have their children’s rights upheld, which takes me on to Inverclyde Council’s budget meeting last Thursday.
By way of background, the SNP council group put forward fully costed proposals for £300,000 to improve the play 4 all summer childcare provision for children with ASN in Inverclyde. Parents consistently highlighted to the SNP councillors and to me the need for such provision. In support of that proposal, which was baselined so that it would be recurring in future budgets, my colleague Councillor James Daisley said during the meeting:
“This is about families who have spoken out, determined to have their struggles recognised. It is about children who, right now, are missing out on the same experiences their peers enjoy—and it is about those families who will one day walk this path—who deserve to know that their child’s needs will be met when the time comes.
This is not just a discussion about policy. It is about fairness, dignity, and ensuring that no family in our community is left behind.
For too long, families raising children with additional and complex needs have not had equal access to one of the most fundamental rights—the ability to learn, play, and be a part of their community during school breaks, summer in particular.
We know this because parents have shared their stories—their exhaustion, their frustration, and their heartbreak.”
Will the member give way on that point?
I am sorry—I do not have time to give way.
Colin Edgeley and his wife Veronica mounted a campaign to encourage local families to urge their local councillors to support that motion. They told me that it is
“exhausting feeling like we must fight for the rights of our children to play, in the same way other children can, and that our elected councillors have thus far allowed it to happen.”
That brings me to the point that I highlighted and that Mr Stewart spoke about, which is about what happens in practice. Improving additional learning is about the positive impact that it has on not only the child but the wider family unit, with parents spending less time and energy fighting for their children’s rights to be upheld. I strongly urge everyone who has the authority to improve the situation for children with ASN and to do all that they can to make it happen, whether that is in Parliament or in local authorities.
I was not going to finish on this point, but, given Mr Stewart’s comments, I will. It is a shame that, last Thursday, Inverclyde’s Labour councillors, supported by independents and Conservatives, could not support the motion that was put forward to support ASN kids in my constituency.
17:29
I very much welcome the members’ business debate that Alexander Stewart has brought to the chamber. In his opening remarks, he was absolutely right to lay out the challenges that are facing pupils with additional support needs across Scotland.
Recent evidence is clear about the extent of the increase in the number of ASN pupils, and about the accompanying concerns among parents and teachers. That said, we should not forget—as Alexander Stewart rightly pointed out—that part of the reason for that increase is better diagnosis. That is a good thing, and we should celebrate it. However, we should also be clear about the growing complexities that are facing schools as they seek to provide the very best education for every child, no matter who he or she may be.
It is on that basis—namely, providing the very best education for every child—that I want to contribute to the debate through the lens of residential outdoor education. Through my Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill—on which I initially had a very helpful meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills—I have sought to ensure that, when providing the very best education for everyone, we do more for those with additional support needs. I pay tribute to Pam Duncan-Glancy for helping in that respect. We have to provide inclusive education, which necessarily includes provision for those with the most challenging physical and mental disabilities to enable them to reap the benefits of the rewarding learning experience that outdoor education provides.
As well as the formal evidence that was presented to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, some of the stories that I have heard from convening the cross-party group on outdoor education show just how transformational the experience can be for those who sometimes feel marginalised.
An example is Oliver, who is deaf and suffers from a developmental disorder. The past few years have been difficult; he struggled with anxiety and depression, which affected his ability and confidence to connect with others, leading him to drop out of school. His deteriorating mental health negatively impacted his motivation for a number of years, and he would spend much of the time indoors and disengaged from others. Everyday tasks were difficult. However, following his experience with the Outward Bound Trust, Oliver said:
“I’ve got a much better outlook, indeed, I’m a lot better in general ... I’m a lot fitter, a lot more willing to go and do things, step out of my comfort zone ... I can do things I wasn’t able to do before.”
Another young person, Eilidh, said:
“People think that people like me can’t do things. In fact, sometimes I think I can’t do things, but being outdoors makes me realise that I can do things”.
Those transformational stories of residential outdoor education are just one of the reasons why I think that it is so important that we work much harder to ensure that we deal with those who have complex additional support needs. Additional support teachers believe that the experience of outdoor learning can be transformational not just for the child, but for the family.
The evidence for the benefits of outdoor education is compelling, especially in respect of enhancing crucial life skills such as confidence and resilience. I do not need to remind members of just how important those skills are, considering recent reports on the Scottish education system regarding disciplinary challenges, behaviour, attendance and attainment. We know that there is an alarming increase in the number of young people who are suffering from mental health issues, particularly in the post-Covid era.
Outdoor education will not be the panacea that solves all that, but we know, from the qualitative evidence from pupils and teachers, just how beneficial it can be. If that is correct, and the evidence is compelling that outdoor education gives the vast majority of pupils that extra-special educational experience, why on earth would we want to turn that opportunity down?
That is why I hope that, in due course, in two weeks’ time, members in the chamber will support my member’s bill at stage 1.
17:33
It is a pleasure to follow Liz Smith’s contribution on the importance of outdoor education—one of the few environments in which there is, ironically, a level playing field on which all young people can learn and work together. I extend my thanks to Alexander Stewart for bringing the debate to the chamber, because the issue is so important and urgent.
More than 40.5 per cent of students in Scotland are now identified as having ASN, up from 20.8 per cent in 2014—that is 284,448 pupils in total. That increase should be seen as a sign of progress in recognising the diversity of students’ needs, but the support that those children require has not kept pace with that growth. Mention has been made of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. It is worth revisiting section 1 of the act, because it tells us what additional support needs are. In fact, the statutory definition is perhaps very different from some people’s understanding of what such needs are.
The 2004 act states:
“A child or young person has additional support needs for the purposes of this Act”—
the act that provides them with their rights—
“where, for whatever reason, the child or young person is, or is likely to be, unable without the provision of additional support to benefit from school education provided or to be provided for the child or young person.”
The emphasis is not on some defect or label that is attached to the child. The 2004 act places an obligation on us to see where a child cannot access education, for whatever reason, and to meet their needs. There is a requirement on us to lift them up, be it through outdoor education, an additional adult in the classroom or a small group of friends who will support and give counsel and help to that individual. We are not achieving that, however, and all the contributions that we have heard in the chamber this evening, and in the past, recognise that.
One of the most frightening statistics relates to the co-ordinated support plans. The prevalence of such plans has dramatically fallen, from 61 per cent, or 3,128, in 2014, to only 21 per cent, or 1,215, today. The 2004 act states that it is through CSPs that young people—and, indeed, their parents, as we have heard in the eloquent contributions today—can enforce their rights.
It is interesting to go back to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s “Additional Support for Learning inquiry” report, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 333 states that
“the Committee notes the views of the Tribunal that the statutory criteria for CSPs should be relaxed. The Committee agrees with this view and asks the Scottish Government to consider whether the restrictive nature of access to the Tribunal is UNCRC compliant.”
In the Scottish Government’s recent publication, “UNCRC Statutory Guidance: Consultation Analysis—Child Friendly Report”, regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—it is a simplified version for children—there is a discussion about
“Ensuring children have effective access to justice”.
The report notes that
“Giving children and young people information was seen as important. They need to know what to do and who to contact if they are worried about their rights not being met.”
It goes on to say:
“Children and young people also need information about how to complain, how long it would take, what would happen, and what help they could get. It is important for adults to listen to, trust and believe children and young people.”
As we have heard from the contributions this evening, those who frequently advocate for young people—adults and the parents themselves—are struggling with that.
I thank Alexander Stewart again for bringing the debate to the chamber. I finish by paraphrasing the powerful words of Kayleigh Brown, née Haggo, from this afternoon’s time for reflection contribution. As she said to members—I think that everyone in Scotland should listen to this—we should see the full potential of what young people with ASN can do, not what they cannot do.
17:38
I congratulate Alexander Stewart on the way that he opened the debate and on the compelling motion that he lodged to ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss an issue that regularly appears in my mailbox from constituents who are concerned about local ASN provision and the budgets allocated to it and about the future of some excellent facilities, which is sometimes in doubt.
I refer, in particular, to the Ladybird Development Group nursery in Lossiemouth. A couple of years ago, outside the Parliament, Pam Duncan-Glancy organised an event for people to speak about ASN cuts across the country. It was at that event that I first met Chelsea Findlay from Lossiemouth, who is an outstanding young mum. She was dealing with challenging circumstances in looking after her children, one of whom has very complex needs, but she was determined to travel, for hours, down to Edinburgh to ensure that her voice was heard outside Parliament.
I hope that we are doing Chelsea justice by representing her concerns in the chamber tonight, because she is just one of many mums, and parents and carers, who have significant concerns about the ASN provision in their area. She is concerned about what that means for her son and her family, but also for other families.
As we heard from Martin Whitfield, the issue is becoming bigger because more and more people are being identified as having additional support needs. I agree with him that that can be seen as a positive; it might well be that diagnosis has got better and that people are getting the support that they need to deal with their additional support needs. However, there is also no doubt that we are not seeing the correlation of that increased demand and increased investment.
In her intervention on Alexander Stewart, the cabinet secretary talked about the additional £29 million. I am sorry, but that money is not having the impact that it needs to have, and it is not the level of funding that is required, given that so many more people have additional support needs and need that support. I also gently say to the cabinet secretary that, when she criticises Conservative members for not supporting the budget—and therefore, I presume, not supporting that investment—I could say the exact same about SNP MPs who did not support the budget at Westminster that resulted in record funding coming to Holyrood for the Scottish Government to distribute. Indeed, I cannot remember a time in recent years when the SNP has ever supported a United Kingdom Government budget that provides the block grant for this Government to deliver many services.
I also want to pick up on Liz Smith’s point about her Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. This Parliament has given that bill a great deal of scrutiny, and it is to Liz Smith’s credit that it has passed through the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which I convene. I look forward to the debate on the bill in just over two weeks’ time, when the entire chamber can look at its benefits for children right across Scotland. However, I should also point out that we heard compelling testimony about how such an approach has emboldened people with ASN and made them feel part of their school and the activities in which they take part. They feel included, and I think that the bill will increase that inclusion for people who have, in many cases, felt excluded from much of what is happening.
I will finish by mentioning the Danish Parliament. Last week, I and Miles Briggs met members of the Danish Parliament’s education committee, which is grappling with the same issues; indeed, people are looking to Scotland to see whether learning can be taken from here. Last May’s report from our Education, Children and Young People Committee highlighted not just some positives, but some challenges for the Government to answer. We put those points to the Danish education committee, and it went away to look at our recommendations, the Government’s response and the future work to be undertaken.
It is on that point about future work that I will conclude. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Education, Children and Young People Committee is looking to do a follow-up evidence session on our ASN report, and I think it incumbent on the Government to accept that, in our communities right across Scotland, there are still major challenges in delivering for pupils with ASN and their families and carers. I hope that what we get in that evidence session with the Government and the cabinet secretary is an acceptance that more needs to be done and a willingness to listen to the concerns that we have heard across the chamber tonight to ensure that we deliver more for pupils with ASN. They deserve our support and the opportunity to thrive in education, as everyone should.
17:43
It is a privilege to follow Douglas Ross, who, as ever, gave an eloquent speech that addressed the key issues in the debate. I also thank Alexander Stewart for bringing the motion to the chamber and for his excellent speech.
I pay tribute to Liz Smith for her speech. A lot of people are saying really nice things about her, now that she has announced that she is going to leave the Parliament, but I think that the nicest thing that we could do to honour her service to our country in this Parliament would be to give the bill that she has piloted to this point proper and serious consideration. I hope that members across the chamber will be open minded with regard to the significant difference that the bill could make to the educational experiences of Scotland’s young people.
I do not want to be too partisan about this, which will come as a surprise to some of the members who are listening, but I think that the cabinet secretary needs to give a full and considered response to the Audit Scotland report that was published a week last Thursday. Frankly, the reality that it has exposed is deeply disturbing. It is not only that 40 per cent of Scotland’s pupils need additional support for learning, but that their schools are underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed.
I wish to raise a concern that has been expressed to me by many teachers, headteachers and others in our schools or who are connected to our education system, which is that the presumption of mainstreaming has been taken too far and, in some cases, is damaging young people, who are being put into mainstream education to their detriment. It does not help that, although it may stick with the ideology of mainstreaming, the Government has failed to properly plan, resource or support it.
The consequence is that many teachers are at breaking point. I think that the cabinet secretary knows that. They cannot manage the classrooms that they are operating in. They feel underequipped to handle some of the complex needs of some young people in their classrooms, in mixed groups of pupils with different abilities and different needs. Some teachers, frankly, operate without the appropriate support staff, do not have the training and do not have the material means to meet the need that they see. They are therefore being left to manage some serious behavioural crises in our schools. Further, schools are not fit for purpose in a physical sense. The Audit Scotland report highlights that only 20 per cent of Scotland’s schools are equipped to deal with children who have more serious additional support for learning needs.
Pupils are being let down. I mean not just the young people who have additional support needs, but those sharing their classroom who do not, because their learning is also being seriously disrupted. The consequences of that are clear in the falling attainment that we see. I know that the cabinet secretary will want to contest all this, but I can go only on the evidence that has been given to me by teachers, headteachers and parents, who are seriously concerned about what is happening to their young people and their experiences of educational attainment in our schools.
There are more exclusions, and more good teachers are leaving the profession because they have a sense of being burnt out. I know of one enthusiastic music teacher who has given her whole life and effort to teaching music in her secondary school. Having had a baby and facing the prospect of returning to work after her maternity leave, she told me that, for the first time in her life, she did not want to go back to work. That is terrible. These are serious issues. I know that that is only one example, but it is a reflection of the wider concerns that are reported to us all as members of the Scottish Parliament, regardless of party or favour.
I can see that my time is up. I ask the cabinet secretary to get beyond some of the token aspects of the debate, deal with the substance of Audit Scotland’s report and deal with the discipline issues in our schools. The NASUWT talks about how half of our teachers have been assaulted in the past year, and they cannot go on. We have discussed the mobile phones issue.
I know that the cabinet secretary has said what she has said, but teachers in this country need support from the Scottish Government. The time has come for us to properly evaluate what I think was an experiment in mainstreaming. It is time to evaluate the cost of that and properly address the needs of all our young people.
17:48
I thank my colleague and friend Alexander Stewart for bringing a hugely important debate to the chamber. There have been very passionate speeches from across the chamber.
I will start with a declaration of interest. I have a daughter who is head of guidance and a physical education specialist at a secondary school. Much of what I am going to say today I have learned from her over the years.
The rise of additional support needs has to be of huge concern, as has the decline in ASN support and assistance, to the detriment of pupils, teachers and parents, as my colleague has just said. I want to look at the issue from a slightly different perspective. I want to look at why it is happening and what it could be connected to.
There are many moving parts, and many other members have spoken about them, but I think that we are discussing additional support needs in isolation. The rise in additional support needs mirrors poor health outcomes and rises in drug and alcohol abuse, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and obesity and poor mental health, as well as declining behaviour in the classroom.
It cannot all be down to the need for better diagnosis or certain conditions not previously being recognised. For me, part of the issue is the lack of opportunities to be active, to be included and to be enthusiastic and passionate about a topic, especially with others. I listened to Stuart McMillan’s speech on his constituency case. The need to be able to access active play is unbelievably important. For pupils who are not academically minded, is there enough in the school curriculum to maintain attention and even attendance?
I have talked many times about how sport and activity are outlets for energy, but those outlets are being eroded. We have the opportunity to address that, including the 1,140 hours in pre-school. In primary schools, physical education specialists have been reduced by 43 per cent in just 10 years. Is it any wonder that children’s opportunities to be active are reducing?
I was pleased to hear Liz Smith speak about outdoor learning, because that embodies the issue—the ability to be out there and to have a variety of experience in sport, art, music and drama, and to have time away from the mobile phone. Are we giving our children outlets to be enthusiastic, committed and engaged in and out of a school environment?
The reduction in access is not the only issue, but it is increasingly becoming a part of the bigger picture. If we keep eroding opportunities to engage, to be part of something and to be committed, we will continue to see a rise in poor mental and physical health and the need for more ASN support.
We have heard about attainment, attendance and behaviour, but it is a false economy. Consideration of the bigger picture is perhaps overdue. We need more outlets so that children can use their energy—at the moment, those opportunities are being eroded.
17:52
I thank Mr Stewart for leading this afternoon’s debate on an incredibly important issue in Scotland’s schools. It has been lively at times and passionate, as it should be, but there continues to be a collective ambition across the chamber in relation to our vision for getting it right for Scotland’s children and young people. Towards the end of the debate, I found myself agreeing with contributions more often than not. There is a political consensus in this space that I will come on to talk to.
As we are all aware, Scotland’s inclusive approach to additional support for learning is enshrined in the 2004 act, and it has broad support. As we have heard during the debate, we all accept that the landscape has changed dramatically since the act was introduced. In recent years, we have seen the number of children and young people with a reported additional support needs rise significantly, to 40 per cent of Scotland’s pupils. Mr Stewart opened the debate by discussing SNP failures. I must gently correct his motion, which refers to a figure of 26.6 per cent, which I think dates from 2017.
I accept that this presents a challenge across our education system. We have discussed the matter at length in the chamber and also at Mr Ross’s committee recently. I was not aware that I would be called back on that issue, but I look forward to going back to the committee to talk to it in more detail.
Mr Stewart is absolutely right to talk about the increase in ASN and the need for additional funding. I spoke about the additional funding from Government, and I heard Mr Ross’s challenge. I accept that £29 million is not enough, but it is supplemented by the extra £1 billion of investment that has been put in place across the past year by central Government.
One of the interesting points from the Audit Scotland report was about the transparency of spend in detail. I think that that point was raised by Stephen Kerr, and I will come on to talk about it in due course, as I want to engage with him specifically on it. There is significant investment coming from central Government to fund additional support needs, so I welcome that report and the need for transparency around the spend and how it is being used at a local level. That has been a key theme of today’s debate.
Alexander Stewart also talked about positive destinations. I know that members will very much welcome the fact that, when we look at the attainment gap for pupils with an identified additional support need, progress has been shown. The gap is narrowing—I accept that that is not happening as quickly as we would like it to—and overall attainment is increasing. That is because pupils are being given a diagnosis and the support in school that perhaps, historically, they did not have access to.
I mentioned the Audit Scotland report and the need for granular data, which is hugely important. Stuart McMillan talked about his constituents’ experiences and their frustrations in accessing appropriate support. I have been very clear in evidence to Mr Ross’s committee and in the chamber previously that no parent should have to fight for the support to which they are legally entitled. I am reminded of my constituent, Niamdh Braid, who has been fighting a battle with Fife Council. Colleagues might already be aware of her case, as it was recently reported on the BBC website. Niamdh was not able to access at a local level the British Sign Language support to which she was entitled, and her family’s action resulted in a ruling in their favour. Families should not have to take that course of action.
I very much thank Liz Smith—a fellow former modern studies teacher—for her eloquent speech. I note that she did not provide support for her leader’s new policy on reducing the school leaving age to 14. Nonetheless, her passion for outdoor education and its transformative impacts on our children and young people cannot be overestimated. She will know that the Government will be responding to her member’s bill in two weeks’ time. We had a very positive meeting on the matter.
Liz Smith and, I think, Mr Kerr are correct to link wider issues in our schools post-pandemic—be they related to attendance or behaviour, which are issues that are regularly debated in the chamber—to the availability of outdoor education. We know that outdoor education can have transformative impacts. As I mentioned, we will respond to the member’s bill in the coming weeks.
Martin Whitfield, who is another former teacher—I am surrounded by them—speaks to the broader measures that are now being used in relation to ASN. The Government’s move in 2012 to broaden out the pupils we capture in the measurement, including young carers and those suffering from bereavement, was, I think, welcome, and I think that all parties have welcomed that in this debate.
Martin Whitfield also touched on CSPs. He will know that, although CSPs are statutory in nature, not having one does not mean that a young person is without access to support. However, there is a challenge in that regard. I provided evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on CSPs previously. We are updating further guidance for parents and carers on CSPs.
My point was really about whether access to the tribunal is UNCRC compliant.
In the Scottish Government’s response to the Morgan review, we committed to ensuring that the 2004 act was fully implemented in relation to the UNCRC provision. I am more than happy to write to the member on that point to provide further clarity.
I accept Mr Ross’s point about there being challenges. I very much hope that he hears from the tone that I have adopted this evening that I am sincere in how I treat the matter. I also did that when I gave evidence to his committee in the past few months. He will not find any disagreement from me in relation to the need to better meet the needs of children and young people. He spoke to his constituents’ experiences in that regard, which happened all too often.
Mr Ross spoke about his mailbox. As he will well understand, I receive emails routinely from people across the country whose experience of how the provision operates in reality in classrooms is often disconnected from the national policy. I accept that challenge, and the Government has responded to the Morgan review and to the committee’s report.
The additional support for learning action plan is a document that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities jointly own. It is hugely important that we have local government at the table in responding to some of the challenge. If we are going to see behavioural change in our classrooms, we need to facilitate better support.
I listened carefully to Mr Kerr’s points about mainstreaming. It was, of course, a policy decision that the previous Labour-Liberal Government took in 2004, but I think that it still commands cross-party support in this place. Like Liz Smith, he spoke to some of the challenges in relation to our classrooms post-pandemic. I accept his points in that regard in relation to ASN. There is a link here.
There was much agreement on the presumption to mainstream, but the difficulty is that, given the increase in the number of young people with considerable complex needs, servicing those needs in our schools is proving to be extremely difficult. Mr Kerr is absolutely right that, because of that difficulty, some youngsters who would benefit from being outwith a traditional classroom environment are suffering, as are the ones who are left in the classroom, where disruption can happen. I know that the cabinet secretary has been told that by teachers, so does she agree that we have to look again at mainstreaming in practice?
We need to look at the totality of our policy and practice in relation to ASN, which is why I am keen to engage with the Auditor General. Liz Smith will well understand why I am particularly interested in the issue of spend. We need to have granularity, and we need to better interrogate how policy is being delivered locally. Having listened to members’ contributions, I do not think that there is a debate about ASN pupils being part of an inclusive education system, but we need to consider how that is resourced locally and what that looks like in schools.
I am very pleased to hear that Mr Whittle’s daughter is a guidance teacher and a PE specialist—I would have expected no less from her. He was absolutely right to speak about wider societal challenges, which were also raised by Mr Kerr and Liz Smith. He might be interested to know that, two weeks ago, I convened a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to talk about issues relating to school nutrition that sit in this space. I am more than happy to write to Mr Whittle on that subject, because he has raised it with me in the chamber on previous occasions.
I am very conscious of the time. I have given members an update on the Government’s policy commitment on ASN, but I readily accept the Parliament’s challenge to the Government to engage with the Auditor General and his office, and I will aim to respond to his report fully. I have provided an update on our additional support for learning action plan, and I have spoken about the record provision of funding from the Government, but the Auditor General’s report includes a challenge about how that funding gets to those who need it most.
I very much welcome the tone and tenor of today’s debate, and I thank Mr Stewart for allowing us to discuss what is a hugely important area in Scottish education.
Meeting closed at 18:02.Air ais
Decision Time