Official Report 953KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14469, in the name of Sue Webber, on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, on additional support for learning. I invite Ms Webber, as convener of the committee, to speak for up to 10 minutes, please.
14:51
I am delighted to be speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee about our inquiry into additional support for learning. I thank my colleagues for their diligent work throughout our inquiry, as well as all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views. Special thanks go to the inclusion ambassadors that we met. They are a group of children and young people from across Scotland with a range of additional support needs who work with Children in Scotland to ensure that their views are heard in decision making relating to education.
In deciding what the inquiry should cover, the committee was acutely aware of the work that was being done in the area and, not least, the report that was produced by Angela Morgan. We knew that the Scottish Government was planning to update its additional support for learning action plan and code of practice and we wanted to ensure that the main issues around ASL provision in Scotland’s schools were both highlighted to the Scottish Government and addressed in the refreshed plan and code of practice.
As it is 20 years since the creation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, it feels like a good time to reflect on what progress has been made and explore what remains to be done. The committee agreed to focus on three main themes, which overlap to some extent—the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming, the impact of Covid-19 on additional support for learning, and the use of remedies as set out in the 2004 act. We launched our inquiry in October 2023. We issued a call for views and received over 600 responses, which came mainly from individuals who had faced barriers in relation to ASL provision.
Currently, over a third of pupils have an additional support need, and many of those pupils will require additional support for their learning, so we cannot ignore the enormity of the situation. At the outset of the inquiry, the committee was keen to hear directly from those with personal experience of how the 2004 act and the presumption of mainstreaming have been working in practice. We spoke to pupils, parents, carers and teachers at informal participation sessions in February and March this year. We then took formal evidence throughout March, before publishing our report in May.
Our report makes clear that the committee was extremely concerned by what it heard regarding people’s negative personal experiences of ASL provision and the detrimental impact on some pupils with ASN, their parents and their carers. We commend the work that teachers and support staff have done in providing support for pupils with ASN, but we were concerned to hear of the pressures that they face, which are leaving them feeling overwhelmed and burnt out. The committee was also concerned to hear parents and carers describe themselves as fighting for the right resources to be put in place for their children. We find that wholly unacceptable.
On the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming, the committee is only too aware that the Scottish Government’s getting it right for every child policy is intended to provide all children and young people and their families with the right support at the right time in order that every child and young person in Scotland can reach their full potential. Sadly, that is not what we heard was happening for many pupils with ASN. We were alarmed to hear that there is strong evidence that the majority of ASN pupils are not having their needs met.
Although we agree with the policy intention behind the presumption of mainstreaming, as set out in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, we found that the gap between the policy intention and how it has been implemented in practice is intolerable. Parents and carers told us of their difficulties in getting the correct support for their child and of the misconception that a formal diagnosis is not only desirable but necessary in order to obtain that support. We recommended
“that the Scottish Government provides clarity in the Code of Practice on how support should be provided to pupils with ASN whether or not they have a formal diagnosis, including from agencies other than education.”
The Scottish Government has confirmed that a formal diagnosis or identification is not required for a child or young person to receive appropriate support for their learning. The Government committed to providing further clarity on the issue in its refresh of the supporting children’s learning code of practice.
The fact that there are long delays in accessing specialist provision within a mainstream setting is another issue that was raised by many witnesses. They include delays in accessing child and adolescent mental health services support and speech and language therapy. We recommended that the Scottish Government works
“closely with bodies such as NHS Scotland, the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, CAMHS and COSLA, to identify the causes of such lengthy delays and ensure that a more joined up approach to providing specialist support within mainstream settings is adopted in future.”
We also heard concerning evidence about neurodivergent pupils who were masking at school—that is, pupils who expend a lot of energy trying to modify their behaviour in an attempt to mask the true extent of their neurodivergence. Inevitably, that means that, when they get home, they are completely overwhelmed and exhausted, which places huge additional pressure on them and their families. We say in our report that much more must be done to understand the prevalence of masking in schools
“and the effect that that is having on pupils’ school and home lives, in particular the impact on parents and carers”.
The Scottish Government has agreed to undertake a literature review on masking in children and young people with ASN and to identify relevant theories and methods and gaps in existing knowledge, with the aim of strengthening the existing resources. We are pleased that our report has helped to make that happen and we await the results of that literature review with interest.
We were concerned to hear that pupils for whom a mainstream setting is not appropriate do not always have access to adequate specialist school provision near them. That means that, through no fault of their own, some pupils have to spend a significant time travelling to and from school each day. We concluded that,
“Given the increase in the number of ASL bases and units within schools in the 20 years since the 2004 Act was passed”,
the Scottish Government should undertake
“a full review of placing requests to specialist services to consider how the current regime is working in practice”.
As part of our inquiry, we heard that the physical environment of a school can have a huge impact on pupils with ASN. For example, many recently-built schools have been designed in such a way that they are not accessible to all. Large campuses with open-plan designs can act as a barrier to learning for pupils with ASN, and particularly for pupils who are neurodivergent. On the existing school estate, we were told of many relatively inexpensive adaptations that can be made to improve accessibility for pupils with ASN. We recommended that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust
“reassess the support and advice provided to local authorities to ensure that schools are designed as accessible and welcoming environments for all”.
In responding to our concerns regarding the physical environment, the Scottish Government told us that, with the Scottish Futures Trust, it has developed a 10-step plan to address the issues that the committee raised, and that work will include stakeholder involvement. We hope to be updated on that early next year.
We also looked at the impact of Covid-19 on ASL. Witnesses spoke of the anxiety and difficulties that pupils with ASN experienced in attending school post-pandemic. We heard that some pupils with ASN were not coping and their needs were not being met, which could really impact on their behaviour and wellbeing. The resulting behaviour is often disruptive and detrimental, and it can not only impact negatively on the pupil with ASN, but affect the learning and mental wellbeing of other pupils in the classroom. Sometimes, that can lead to the pupil with ASN being alienated.
We also heard that a disproportionate number of pupils with ASN were being excluded from school. We recommended that further work be undertaken by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to establish the reasons for that and what can be done to make improvements. The Scottish Government accepted that recommendation and said that it was engaging with COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and Education Scotland to consider it in detail.
Finally, the inquiry explored the use of remedies for parents and carers when things are not working well. I do not have time to cover all of what we heard, but I highlight that a number of witnesses told us that the current ASL landscape could be cluttered and confusing.
As a result of our report, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills committed to looking at the communication mechanisms with families in relation to the rights of parents, carers and pupils and to parental and pupil involvement in the decision-making process.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s 2nd Report, 2024 (Session 6), Additional Support for Learning inquiry (SP Paper 585).
15:00
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Education, Children and Young People’s Committee’s report on additional support for learning. I thank the convener, committee members and the clerks for all their work on and commitment to this important topic. I also thank those who took the time to contribute to the inquiry, whether in writing or in person, to provide the committee with evidence of their lived experiences—as we have heard from the convener this afternoon—their knowledge and their expertise.
As committee members will be aware, I committed to pausing the latest update of the additional support for learning action plan during my evidence session to the committee earlier this year. That was done quite deliberately to ensure that we fully considered and listened to the outcomes of the committee’s inquiry. It is in that spirit that I will engage in and respond to this debate, to ensure that the Government’s response takes cognisance of the committee’s views.
Today, as we have heard from the convener, the number of pupils in Scotland’s schools with an additional support need stands at a record high. As noted in the national discussion on education, that is a key feature and a strength of Scotland’s unique and inclusive education system. Our additional support needs pupils are not additional—they are part of the fabric of our approach to school education. The committee unanimously agreed that the highly inclusive approach that is embodied in the policy and legislation that we have in Scotland is the right one, and I firmly agree. We should celebrate the inclusive nature of our approach to education in Scotland and be particularly mindful that it was not always so in the recent past.
That being said, I cannot stand here today without acknowledging that we still have challenges in the system, from how young people experience inclusivity, from their parents and carers, and from those whom we entrust to deliver their education. Those challenges are about policy intention versus practice, as the convener set out in her contribution.
When Angela Morgan published her report in 2020, she was clear that her recommendations were not a quick fix and that cultural change to deliver improvement on the ground for children and young people would take time. Today, 37 per cent of pupils in Scotland have an additional support need, and in some schools it is estimated to be as high as 50 per cent. To compare, when Angela Morgan published her review back in June 2020, just over 30 per cent of the school-age population was recorded as having an additional support need. In 2010, it was only 10 per cent.
I do not believe that those young people have simply appeared overnight. Indeed, I am firmly of the view that they have always been a key part of Scotland’s education system. Perhaps we are better now at acknowledging them, although undoubtedly part of the shift is also down to the way in which we now record statistics.
Irrespective of that, there can be no doubt that the overall level of need continues to grow and that the complexity of need is changing, particularly post-pandemic, as the committee has heard.
Does it concern the cabinet secretary that the number of specialist teachers for pupils with additional support needs has gone down in that period?
Yes, and I am sure that we will hear responses from members on that point. I am also sure that the member will recognise that we now have record numbers of pupil support assistants in Scotland’s schools as a direct result of investment from the Government. In the past financial year alone, we have seen 725 more pupil support assistants in Scotland’s schools. However, I take the member’s point in relation to specialist staff.
The education landscape continues to evolve, as we have seen a significant shift in the context within which we deliver education, as I referenced in last week’s statement on qualifications reform.
Children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural issues are now the largest population of pupils with additional support needs. We know from the behaviour in Scotland’s schools research that schools are dealing with a wider variety of challenges than they perhaps would have faced four or five years ago.
The financial context, which we debated not two weeks ago during Conservative Party time, is having a direct impact on the choices that the Government in Scotland is able to make. However, it is also worth while pointing out that it is within that challenging context that we have protected and increased funding for additional support needs. I know that the committee considered the issue and I appreciate that Audit Scotland is carrying out further work on spend, which will be helpful in addressing the other portfolios and areas of our public services that contribute to ASN spend.
Under this Government, authorities’ spending on additional support for learning has reached a record high of £926 million in the past financial year. We also have the highest number on record of pupil support assistants—17,330—which is an increase of more than 2,000 since 2020. That additionality, which is protected by the Government, is helping our schools to respond to the individual needs of our children and young people, and those who are most vulnerable.
The recommendations from the Morgan review are being directly implemented through the additional support for learning action plan. The plan details the actions that are to be taken at national and local level to address the challenges that are raised and to support the necessary shift in culture, leadership and values across the education system. We have already progressed more than half of those actions; 40 of the 76 actions have been delivered so far. To date, we have published two progress reports and we will publish the third progress report, together with an updated action plan, by the end of October.
Education Scotland’s work, through its collaborative improvement visits with ADES, is one example of the progress that we have made. All local authorities in Scotland are engaged, and seven include a focus on ASL. The information from those reports is currently being made available through the national improvement hub on additional support for learning.
Another example is the work that is currently under way with Scotland’s councils to establish parent groups for people whose children have additional support needs. The groups will be for parents and carers and will support enhanced collaboration and communication on additional support for learning—a key issue that the committee considered. That came from the “Learning together” national action plan, which was published in 2023, and we will look to further support that work in relation to communication.
Professional learning opportunities for our teachers and support staff continue to be a real priority. We know that there is more than one approach to addressing the issue of staff training, and I note that the committee did not have a universal view on the use of mandatory training on ASN. Nonetheless, we remain committed to exploring options regarding initial teacher education. To that end, I have asked my officials to conduct a short analysis of learning hours that are attributed to ASN support, specifically in ITE, across all of our initial teacher education providers. In Government, it is important that we understand the level of support that is given to teachers as they begin their journey into the profession.
The committee’s recommendations cover a wide range of issues, some of which are directed towards the Scottish Government for action and some of which sit with other partners, such as local authorities. That collaboration will be key to progressing all of our existing areas of work. It is important to remember—as I know that committee members will—that powers for educational improvement often rest not with central Government but with local authorities.
I have indicated to the committee that, where we intend to strengthen aspects of the ASL action plan, we will deliver on the committee’s asks. To that end, the updated ASL action plan, as I mentioned, will be published in the coming weeks. I hope that committee members will take note of the progress and engagement in the plan’s response to the committee’s important work.
The minister has given a calm defence of her Government’s record, but that is not what we got from parents and young people. They are angry and they are fizzing that years and years of talk have resulted in them being treated in a way that has left them feeling isolated. How much energy is the minister putting into the work? Her calm presentation is fine and professional, but that is not what the parents and children are feeling.
In the evidence that the committee took, I note the strength of feeling from parents, carers and young people. A large part of my work as education secretary is to go out almost on a weekly basis into schools and listen to that strength of feeling, so I very much recognise the emotion that is behind the frustration that parents often feel, particularly when they are not able to access services to which they should be entitled. As I am presenting the Government’s calm and rational response to the committee’s recommendations—which I think is the correct way to address them—I do not doubt the strength of feeling, and I am very much focused on delivering improvements to that end. I paused the update of the ASL action plan in order to listen to the committee and I will also be listening today to members’ responses, including Mr Rennie’s, to make sure that we drive the improvements to which he spoke.
The convener mentioned communications, which are a key theme that runs through the work of the project board as well as the committee inquiry. The next phase of the ASL action plan will look to prioritise the need to improve accessibility of communications for all. To go back to Mr Rennie’s point, that has been a key frustration, which, as the committee has heard from parents, has fed into some of the emotive response that the committee has taken evidence on.
As members will know, I have also committed to updating the code of practice, which will address a number of the committee’s recommendations. We are working collaboratively with a range of education partners to ensure that that guidance supports teachers and school staff in meeting the needs of our young people. A public consultation will provide further opportunity for stakeholder feedback. I will write to the committee once the date for that has been agreed, which I expect to be early next year.
Finally, the next phase of work will also prioritise the national measurement framework. Success is different for everyone and, as we heard last week, we must celebrate all learners’ achievements.
I welcome the committee’s inquiry on additional support for learning. It is a timely and necessary inquiry, and its contribution sits within a wider landscape of a Scottish education system that is much changed by the Covid pandemic. The context in which we are working is challenging, but I truly believe that, if we continue to work in partnership, we can support all children and young people to reach their full potential. It is in that spirit that I look forward to hearing the perspectives and thoughts of committee members from across the chamber today.
15:10
The additional support for learning inquiry report is a serious document. I commend my committee colleagues, the Parliament staff and especially all those who submitted their views and appeared before the committee to help us.
The inquiry was launched to consider how the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the presumption of mainstreaming from the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 are working—and that is not before time, because there has been an extraordinary increase in the need for additional support in Scottish schools. The cabinet secretary gave percentages, but I think that the figures are even more stark. There were around 260,000 individuals with ASN in 2023, which was up from about 70,000 14 years ago. That increase means that, although many people report feeling that the Scottish Government has, historically, ignored the issue, prevarication is not an option, now that nearly 40 per cent of Scotland’s pupils have some form of additional need.
In fact, given the conclusions of the report, which came eight years after the latest amendment to the 2004 act and four years on from the Morgan review, some people might consider “prevarication” to be a polite way of putting it. The committee’s conclusion at paragraph 62 is stark. It states:
“there was strong evidence to suggest that the majority of ASN pupils are not having their needs met.”
That is not surprising, given the committee’s finding that there is inconsistent implementation and application of principles across local authorities, which is leading to an inconsistent experience for children that is determined by where they live.
We also found, as a consistent theme, inadequate funding and lack of resources for schools to properly support children with additional needs, which is only getting worse.
That, in turn, is stretching existing services and is increasing pressure on already hard-pressed staff, which is being exacerbated by existing challenges in availability, especially of specialists. That, of course, stands to reason. To put a number on the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made in an important intervention earlier, there are now more than 600 fewer ASN teachers than there were in 2010.
All that leads to inconsistencies in additional needs being identified, with some people being missed or identified only following their having experienced significant challenges at school. Ultimately, that leads to a situation in which, although the policy of mainstreaming is broadly supported—as the commission on school reform, the Govan Law Centre and Unison Scotland, among others, said to us—there is a huge gap between policy intention and delivery.
The committee has proposed solutions that include better resourcing and training for teachers and staff; enhanced collaboration between education, health and social services to ensure comprehensive care when that is required; improved data collection and monitoring to assess the effectiveness of ASL policies; increased awareness of parents’ rights; and clearer communication channels. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Morgan report suggested much of that in 2020. The fact that, four years later, the committee is finding much the same things under much the same Government suggests that the issue is not being prioritised in the way that we all think it should be prioritised.
Liam Kerr mentioned staff training. The committee took evidence on staff training for pupil support assistants and class teachers. Does he have a direct view on that? I appreciate that the committee took a range of evidence on the topic, with some people advocating mandatory training and others sitting in a different space.
The member will have heard me say in my speech that we are going to audit the number of hours that our initial teacher education providers provide in relation to ASN. It would be helpful to hear his views on that, and any other ideas that he might have on how we can provide a more consistent offer of staff training for teachers and pupil support assistants.
I can give you the time back.
The very fact that we are having this conversation is productive, because the Government recognises the importance of that extra training. We have recognised it for a very long time—our manifesto for the previous election talked about ensuring initial teacher training that would fully prepare all teachers to identify and support children with things such as dyslexia and autism. That was core to our manifesto offering.
When it comes to the core nature of the issue, and the need for prioritisation of it, I am afraid that the Government is not taking it seriously enough. That is borne out by the Government’s response, including to the committee’s proposed solutions. The Government’s response claims:
“The Scottish Government is fully committed to ensuring that ... those with additional support needs, are supported to live their lives to their fullest”,
despite the committee’s report suggesting entirely the contrary.
The Government's response goes on to say:
“That is why we have a highly inclusive legislative framework in place, which enables early learning, childcare and school settings to address any barriers to learning.”
However, the committee’s report suggests that it enables nothing of the sort.
Willie Rennie’s intervention was spot on: there has to be honesty about what is going on. I worry about the fact that, in its 27-page response, the Government, in characteristic fashion, either lauds past funding decisions and proudly states the inputs, without interrogating or assessing whether the outputs or the key performance indicators are being achieved—as the cabinet secretary just did in her remarks—or it pushes responsibility on to what it describes as its “partners”, including COSLA, Education Scotland, the universities and so on. When it is not slopey-shouldering on to its partners, it talks about what the ASL project board might do.
Many people outside here might be unfamiliar with the board, which was set up in October 2020 with a remit to deliver the ASL action plan by March 2026. That lack of familiarity is no surprise. Given that the minutes of its 31 July meeting were uploaded only on 20 September, if we assume that the ASL project board duly met as was intended on 12 September 2024, people will remain unfamiliar for some time. That is a pity, because the cabinet secretary committed in her response to deliver a progress report on the ASL action plan.
That progress report was last discussed by the ASL project board on 31 July, when the project board was content to approve the progress report to be presented to the Scottish Government and COSLA decision makers for clearance. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can confirm in closing whether it has been presented and when precisely the plan—which, I think, she said would be presented in October—will come before us.
In her remarks, the cabinet secretary also committed to a consultation on a refresh of “Supporting children’s learning: code of practice”, but I can find no evidence of that commencing, or of when it will. She committed to a literature review on the relationship between masking and ASN, but I can find no evidence of that happening. On the problems of delays that the committee identified, she said that she would engage with Scottish Government partners, including COSLA, and provide an update to the committee. I do not recall an update to the committee.
As I have mentioned COSLA, I note that its response to the committee was received and published only on Friday afternoon last week. To be fair, I point out that the cabinet secretary’s response runs to 28 pages and was given to us in July. COSLA’s response runs to two pages and fails for example, to mention COSLA’s opinion on the progress report on the ASL action plan. I suspect that that was discussed at the latest ASL project board meeting, because COSLA co-chairs it, but I cannot be sure because the minutes of that meeting are, as I said, not yet published. My concern is that, in 2023, the minutes for September’s ASL project board meeting were not published until 21 December. I sincerely trust that we will not have to wait three months for the next update.
I said a fortnight ago, during the Conservative debate on the SNP’s axing of the school meals manifesto promise, that this is about priorities. The money is there to make good things happen; it is just that this Government chooses its priorities. In the two weeks since that debate, to add to the constitution budget being maintained at £347 million while education is axed by £6.7 million and health by £115 million, we have seen a Government whose First Minister prefers to go leafleting in Glasgow, that flew its net zero minister to New York last year on a trip that cost £70,000, and which devotes significant legislative time to a bill on Scottish languages.
ASL is one of the most serious matters affecting Scotland, and the report is a serious attempt to analyse what is going on and to recommend solutions. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government is anything but serious about dealing with it.
15:20
I apologise to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to other members, as I have to leave the chamber slightly early this afternoon, for which I have secured prior permission from the Presiding Officer.
It is a great honour to open for Labour in this debate on additional support for learning, which is a subject that is close to my heart. I am proud to have been part of the committee’s inquiry. I believe, as many colleagues do, that every child has the right to education, the right to reach their fullest potential and the right to equal opportunity.
Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that education must develop every child’s personality, talents and abilities to the full. Those are not just aspirations but rights. I know, and my committee colleagues know, only too well how hard fought-for those rights are, because that is what we heard.
As a young woman, my life chances were put at significant risk. My family and I spent a considerable amount of time and energy on righting wrongs in the system. If it was not for the hard work of teachers, a Government and a school that were on my side, as well as a mum, dad and sister who were relentless in their pursuit of opportunity and equality, including for me, I might not be here today. The same opportunity should be available to everyone.
Does the member agree that the report does not cover the children who do not make it to school? We have a growing number of children who are not getting the opportunity to even be there, and the Government is not dealing with that issue in an appropriate way.
I will give you the time back for the intervention.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Attendance is a serious issue, and pupils with additional support needs are more likely than others not to attend. I hope that the Government will take that matter incredibly seriously when it responds not just to the report but to the other factors on attendance that have been highlighted to us in recent weeks and months.
It should never have been a fight to get that opportunity. That it was and—as the committee heard—that it still is should be a sobering wake-up call. More than that, though, it must be a call to action. I hope that that is the spirit in which the Government will approach and act on the report that is before it.
The reality is that far too many young people’s rights are not being upheld and their opportunities are being limited. This afternoon, we have heard from my colleagues Sue Webber and Liam Kerr, and from the cabinet secretary, about some of the ways in which the committee has set out how difficult things are.
Young people with additional support needs are being let down. They face numerous barriers in accessing inclusive education, and I contend that the barriers are systemic. Only this morning, we again heard in committee how the system works against pupils with additional support needs. This morning, the Educational Institute of Scotland and others told the committee that their members stand up for quality education every day, and I thank them for doing so. However, they do not have the help that they need from the Government to support pupils with additional support needs as they should. They are rushed off their feet. The scaffolding around them and around the young people—CAMHS, speech and language therapy and educational psychology, to name just a few aspects of it—has all but gone.
Systemic change is required, and that needs political will. However, I fear that that is lacking. I am afraid that I could see that creeping in, as my colleague Willie Rennie has mentioned, in the Government’s response to the committee’s report, particularly on co-ordinated support plans. The committee heard that people do not access co-ordinated support plans, which, crucially, are the only plans that give them a statutory right to ask for help and support. We also heard that people do not access them because they cannot get the third-party involvement that is needed to qualify for them—CAMHS, speech and language therapy and educational psychology—because of waiting lists or because that is no longer available.
Instead of setting out what it will do to address that serious concern, which the committee has raised, the Government has again said that implementation is the issue. Implementation is, of course, the issue. However, on this matter, the statutory code of practice and the guidance need to be addressed if we are to take account of that and drive forward the change that is needed. We have heard before from the Government that legislation is not needed to resolve the issue. Indeed, I heard that said when we were discussing my member’s bill. Pupils and parents across the country will be listening and saying that they have heard it before. We need action, not warm words from the Government. We do not have enough pace.
As we have heard, the number of pupils with additional support needs is going up but support, the number of specialist teachers and the scaffolding around them have dropped dramatically. In addition to that, a disproportionate number of pupils with ASN come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and greater support for children from such areas is also needed to level the playing field of opportunity.
There have been repeated calls from parents, teachers and support staff for change to be implemented. They are as angry as Willie Rennie has said they are, and they believe that talk is not enough. People feel that the Government has sat back, that it has let them down and that it has refused to introduce the necessary legislation to change the playing field.
The Government has hidden behind the implementation gap, but the reality is that that is not enough. It commissioned Angela Morgan’s review, which it published four years ago. I am disappointed that, to say the least, little has moved on since then. The only real change in the system is that more young people need support, teachers have to do more with less support and families are stressed out as they advocate for their children and young people.
Helen Forrest, the chief executive of Children’s Health Scotland, said:
“it’s shameful that the needs and rights of children and young people with additional support needs are”
still
“not being met”.
Meeting the needs of pupils with additional support needs must be a priority, not just because the committee found that there is a significant gap between the ambitions and implementation of mainstreaming, because the situation was found to be intolerable or because there are more children with additional support needs, but because we, in the Scottish Parliament and the Government, have a moral and legal duty to get it right.
I am pleased that the committee’s report recommends that the deficiencies be addressed with urgency, and I hope that the Government will act with pace. As the report sets out, there is a way forward. We can have an education system that promotes equal opportunity for all. If we listen and act, we can take teachers with us and support them to do the job that they know they can do. We can have a system that enables pupils with additional support needs to leave school with a fighting chance and that gives them opportunity. We know that that will require change that stops delays in the provision of support, that provides greater clarity and clearer career pathways for staff who support pupils and that puts parents, pupils and staff in school at its heart.
People like me do not always get the same life chances as others. Some of us, with the help of a tenacious family, parents, teachers and a good Government, buck the trend, but it is our job in the Parliament to change that trend. It is our job to lift the class, glass and step ceiling that is in the way of opportunity, with a relentless focus on spreading opportunity for every young person in Scotland. That is the job of a world-leading education system, and we can begin to have such a system again with a Government that is willing to do it.
15:28
I echo other members’ thanks to the clerks, committee members and those who gave evidence to the inquiry.
As most members will be aware, and as the committee’s report highlights, in the past decade alone, the number of pupils across Scotland with a recognised additional support need has doubled. As we have developed a better understanding of additional support needs, the number of pupils in Scotland who are identified as being in need of extra support has increased dramatically. However, those numbers do not include pupils who might have an additional support need that has not yet been recognised, for one reason or another, and who have slipped through the cracks of a system that is designed to support them.
The number of pupils with a recognised additional support need jumps wildly from year to year, not only because of our greater understanding of those additional needs but because of the disparity in reporting between local authorities.
Although, as members will be aware, I do not sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I am impersonating Ross Greer today—I noted with great interest the contents of the report and the submissions to the committee. I will come on to many of them in due course, but one in particular relates to my previous point. The issue of when support can be put in place for a young person was highlighted in the report. It claims that some local authorities are waiting for a formal ASN diagnosis before putting the necessary support in place and that, in other areas, although that is not required, that fact is not communicated effectively to parents, which has a knock-on impact on the accuracy of reporting.
As we have heard, the only available support that is set out in law is co-ordinated support plans, but only 0.5 per cent of young people with a recognised ASN currently have one and the gap is continually widening. More and more frequently, we hear testimony—through the committee’s inquiry and beyond—that councils do not fully understand what is required of them when it comes to co-ordinated support plans and that young people and parents have gone through experiences that have been nothing short of traumatic because of the lack of a CSP.
Co-ordinated support plans should play a critical role in enabling children to access the support required to have their rights fulfilled, but the criteria for them is too narrow for them to be effective. The current criteria, which are outlined in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, lead to an outdated and restrictive view of the provision of CSPs by local authorities. Removing the current criteria from primary legislation would provide greater flexibility and adaptability in ensuring that CSPs work for individuals.
Following the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, should the Scottish Government not be aware that its failure to address concerns about co-ordinated support plans merely opens up a different avenue by which young people can bring an action against a local authority or, indeed, the Scottish Government?
Absolutely. Mr Whitfield is far more of an expert in that area than I am, and he makes his point well.
A major barrier to young people accessing co-ordinated support plans is the requirement for a young person to need at least 12 months of intense support from multiple services. When everyone agrees that a young person needs a co-ordinated support plan, they might not be able to get one because that specific box cannot be ticked.
An option for changing the requirements for obtaining a co-ordinated support plan could sit with the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. I know that the bill would not be within the direct remit of education ministers, but I would welcome confirmation from the Government of whether it considers that an amendment of that nature would be within scope. It is disappointing that the bill is not included in the latest programme for government, but I welcome the reassurances from the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport and the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise that work on the bill’s provisions is under way, and I hope that the bill will be published as soon as possible.
My Scottish Green colleagues and I stand firm in our belief that education must be inclusive, with every young person able to thrive. However, the committee’s report highlights that, although Scotland’s education system is largely well intentioned, it is failing to deliver the inclusive vision that it set out to achieve. The failure is particularly evident when we consider the lack of adequate resources and support staff. Teachers and support workers are often overwhelmed by the growing demands in classrooms, and the committee heard from witnesses who described the increasing complexity of pupils’ needs, but the level of specialist support—whether from speech and language therapists, from educational psychologists or from mental health services—is simply not keeping pace.
With the right resources, the vast majority of pupils with additional support needs can and should be supported in mainstream schools, although for young people with very high levels of additional needs, education providers for those with complex needs will continue to provide the most appropriate education environment. However, as witness after witness said in their evidence, the implementation of mainstreaming has been problematic and has not been properly resourced. As the committee’s report highlights, children with more complex needs are increasingly being placed in mainstream settings without appropriate support. That is setting them up to fail, and it is putting immense pressure on teachers, who are not equipped to manage pupils with diverse and complex needs without the right training and resources.
I am sure that there will be a lot of talk in this debate about the lack of resources. I recognise that it would be inappropriate of me to demand more and more from the Government while the cabinet secretary’s budget is becoming tighter and tighter. However, although I recognise the challenges of funding such a system, there must be greater scrutiny of how current spending priorities across the Government might be rebalanced to better support young people. The Government continues to pursue a wide array of wasteful spending. In education, one saving—albeit a small one—could be made by ending national standardised assessments. In other areas, shooting estates get about £4 million-worth of tax breaks, and there are other tax breaks for large, highly profitable organisations. That would be a good place from which to start reallocating money.
The education portfolio bears a disproportionate burden of in-year budget balancing exercises because, unlike many other portfolios, it has areas of spending that can be reallocated each year. The collective effect of that in the past few years has been disproportionate and has had an impact not only on tackling rising issues with behaviour in schools and the universal provision of school meals, but on the support that can be offered to the ever-rising number of young people in Scotland with additional support needs.
15:35
I am in awe of the committee clerks who were able to write such a coherent and powerful report using our various ramblings on the committee, and of the powerful, emotional and angry witnesses who came forward. The clerks have been able to transcribe that into an effective report that has struck at the heart of the Government.
I received some information from the National Autistic Society, which carried out a survey of pupils, parents and teachers. Although there was support for mainstreaming, an even higher percentage—81 per cent—said that Scotland does not have a fully inclusive education system. I will read out one especially powerful quote from someone, who said:
“My son was trapped in mainstream and did not cope, even with full one-to-one support, which was provided by several teaching assistants borrowed from different classes from different year groups at different times of the day and the week. They had no training or real understanding of autism or dyspraxia. In his time at mainstream school, my son was taught at a desk at the back of the stage in the hall, with very little teacher input.”
That is a recent experience, and it should shame us. We are supposed to have a fully inclusive system, but that young man was taught at the back of the hall by a range of pupil support assistants with no specialist training, from a variety of different classes and at different times. That should not be happening.
That colours the whole report and contrasts starkly with what we sometimes celebrate as our ability to identify more people with specialist needs. If we do not address those needs, however, there is little point in identifying them. We can celebrate until the cows come home, but if we do not do anything about it, all that we are doing is setting people up to fail. That was the conclusion of our report.
I meet a lot of parents who have young people—and sometimes older people—with additional specialist learning requirements. They fight all of their lives, and they are brilliant at doing so. They are effective at making the authorities listen, but they should not have to put so much effort in, because the system should be helping them instead of putting up barriers. However, they do it all of their lives.
We have had the Morgan review, we have legislation, we have GIRFEC—indeed, we have policies and legislation coming out of our ears, but the real impact on the ground is very limited. More than one in three pupils in a typical class will have some kind of need.
I have talked about the pupil experience, but the teacher experience is just as challenging. How are teachers supposed to cope with a huge, wide range of needs in a class? We are not talking about an homogenous group of young people; they have a variety of needs that requires a variety of specialists and training. How are teachers supposed to cope with that huge variation?
There has been some talk of mandatory training. One of the cautions that we had about pursuing that sort of mandatory route was that, because the cohort is so wide and varied, and because people’s needs are so wide and varied and change from day to day and year to year, knowledge and understanding of them change constantly, too.
That is why the speech and language representatives who spoke to the committee were so powerful. They regretted the fact that they were not in the class, providing support, exchanging knowledge and making sure that practice could be brought up to speed. Instead of doing the teaching themselves, they wanted to help teachers to deal with that particular pupil and their particular needs. I thought that that was a particularly powerful bit of evidence.
I am therefore cautious about mandatory training. Of course we should have an awful lot more training—that should be in the nature of the job—but the way in which we deliver it needs to be bespoke to the individual young people in the class.
When the education secretary came before the committee, she expressed reservations about the current practice of building big, open-plan schools, and reservations about that were also expressed to us directly by, I think, the National Autistic Society. I am puzzled about how we have pursued the construction of new schools over the 17 years of SNP Government without that knowledge being shared with those who design the classrooms. It came as something of a surprise to the education secretary that it was happening, but I know that, in Fife, two schools are being combined with a college to create a whopping big super-campus. John Swinney insisted that that should happen, even though the college was not particularly keen on going down that route. How on earth has there been such a disconnect between what the education secretary believes now, which I have sympathy with, and the previous practice of building colossal, whopping big schools, often at the direction of the minister at the time?
As a result of that disconnect, we have built many schools to a design that is perhaps not suitable for many young people, especially those who are neurodivergent. I would like to hear what the education secretary intends to do with regard to a change of practice in that area, because we continue to build more schools, and we continue to build schools that are perhaps not suitable for many young people.
Of course, resources are an issue. We need to make sure that we get the right resource into this area, and we need to look at reallocations. However, the issue is not simply about resources—it is about the practice, too. We need to make sure that we have the right teachers, with the right training, in the right place, with the right attitude and the right support from leaders in education authorities and in the Scottish Government.
We move to the open debate.
15:41
I congratulate the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s convener on securing the debate and the committee on being true to its word and keeping a sustained focus on the experiences of children and young people with additional support for learning needs.
As a former member of the committee who was involved in its work in this area, I thank the children and young people and their adults who shared their experiences with us. The committee was fortunate to hear directly from the inclusion ambassadors, who were supported by Children in Scotland, on how it feels when their school gets support right. I appreciated how openly and generously they spoke of their experience as pupils with additional support needs, and their experience of what works and what could be made better.
It feels right to share what they said with members. They told the committee that pupils feel really good when the support that is provided is correct and suits their needs. They let us know that it was hard to understand when somebody does not give them the support that they need, and they highlighted that it does not work well when there are not enough support staff to cope with the number of pupils who need support, which can lead to pupils feeling frustrated. That brings us back to the point that Willie Rennie made about support staff being moved around. Every time that that happens, a young person misses out, as a result of a support staff member being moved elsewhere.
As I have said, the committee met young people, the inclusion ambassadors and parents, carers and teachers in informal participation sessions to ensure that it heard directly from people with personal experience so that it could get a handle on the issues that they faced. The committee was extremely concerned by what it heard about people’s negative personal experiences of ASL provision, the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming and the detrimental impact that that has had on some pupils with ASN and on their parents or carers, teachers and support staff.
It is important to say that the committee recognised the excellent work that was being done by teachers and support staff, but it was extremely concerned to hear about the pressures that they faced, which left them feeling overwhelmed and burned out. The issue of resource was a frequent theme, not only in relation to the number of staff and assistants who are available to support children, but when it comes to providing the flexibility to allow staff the time for on-going training and reflection on practice.
Parents often described the exhaustion that they felt in their fight to navigate systems in order to ensure that their children had the education that they were entitled to. There is no doubt in my mind that a gap exists between the legislation and policy that we have—and which are excellent—and what children and young people are experiencing. The strength of feeling from the committee’s report should be really clear: when a cross-party committee’s report uses words such as “intolerable”, the Government needs to take notice.
I will share an example of a bit of work from my local authority area. I had the pleasure of helping to facilitate discussions and actions between ASN support Ayrshire, which is a parents group, and North Ayrshire Council. ASN support Ayrshire had reached out to me, with parents expressing their struggle to access support for their children—support to which, again, they were entitled—and feeling that their opinions were not being valued, that they were not being heard by schools and that communications were becoming really challenging.
When I raised the issue with the local authority, it was very open to meeting and discussing things. I and a representative from ASN support Ayrshire, the executive manager for inclusion and child protection, and the principal educational psychologist had productive discussions at which training, parental engagement, communication, the E19 process, masking and areas of excellent practice were all talked about.
A suggested improvement was accepted to the E19 process with regard to parents being able to see the report submitted to the inclusion group and ensuring that all parents were aware that they could submit a statement and any additional information that they felt was pertinent. The council shared its proposed new literature with the ASN support network for its feedback, and monthly meetings and on-going collaboration are planned.
The committee’s report states that
“improvements can be made to current practice, without incurring additional expenditure”.
What I have just described is quite a good example of that. I am hopeful that those actions will make a difference to how parents experience their journey with children through the education system.
The committee’s report also recognises that
“where systems need to improve it is as important to understand where things are working as well as where there are challenges.”
The importance of that point, as we move forward, is that, where an implementation gap exists and people are being failed, despite good policy and perhaps world-leading legislation, more legislation and structural change might not be what is required to make things better for people. We have to be vigilant that we, in this place, are not simply labelling whole systems as broken.
In this and in previous committee inquiries, it has been clear that some of the best practice and results for children and young people were more about culture than about legislation. There is some learning in that for all of us and for children and young people in Scotland, and it is a lesson that we really need to learn quickly.
15:47
I am sure that my colleagues will be aware of the strong feeling that disabled issues are not taken seriously in the Parliament. There has been a distinct lack of action during this parliamentary session and, with two disability bills kicked into the long grass and £10 million stolen from changing places toilets, many individuals and organisations are, rightly, feeling let down. I am, however, grateful to the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its work on the report and I hope that it can spark meaningful action that will improve the lives of disabled children in our schools.
I had a very positive upbringing: I had supportive parents who fought hard to ensure that I did not lack any opportunity on the basis of my disability; I attended mainstream classes during my whole education; and I was able to be involved in various activities. Until 2016, I believed that I had had a fairly normal experience. Since being elected, I have seen more and more evidence that mainstreaming is not the gold-standard solution that it perhaps has been seen as in the past.
I agree with the committee’s findings that a presumption of mainstreaming is a positive thing but I believe that, in many cases, we have gone too far, by forcing children into classes that are not suited to them, which ensures that they and their peers will fail. The reality is that a mainstream class will never be suitable for many children, but that is okay. We have to accept that alternative educational pathways are a sign not of failure but rather of success in supporting an individual’s learning.
Whatever the pathway, it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that the right resources are in place to support those who need it. During oral evidence, the committee heard from the Salvesen Mindroom Centre that there are many cases in which a child is in mainstream school but the school cannot provide adequate support, and it can be a real struggle for parents to secure specialist provision. We cannot allow that to continue.
No one can provide high-quality education without the necessary funding and resources, regardless of the additional needs of the class. If mainstreaming is to work, we have to have ASN teachers in the classroom with the financial support that is needed. That comes down to the resourcing of local government. We cannot run away from the fact that, without the money, children will fail. Recognising that, it is equally important that we ensure that special school places are readily available for those who require them.
Again, I understand that the committee heard during oral evidence that places can be hard to come by and that a number of children with additional support needs have no provision in their area. That is unacceptable, and I am pleased to see that the committee recommends that local authorities should assess what specialist provision is in place and address any gaps in provision urgently.
I draw attention to the fact that there is a tendency to act as though, once someone who has additional support needs has their place in a class—whether mainstream or not—that is the end of the story. On the contrary, we should recognise that additional support needs are not set in stone and can change because of many factors. Just because a solution is appropriate at one moment, it does not mean that it will be appropriate for the whole of an educational period. Sometimes a child is happy in a mainstream class for a while but then their needs change to the extent that a special class might be more appropriate. The journey continues, and we should be ready to adapt where that is needed. We must have a system that is comprehensive enough to ensure that all children have a solution that fits their needs and is flexible enough to deal with the fact that those needs can change.
This is not a theoretical discussion; it is not just a debate to fill a Wednesday afternoon. I have been approached by a constituent whose child has just finished primary school. They attended two days a week, and for those two days they were educated in the hall outside the classroom with one support teacher. At best, they got 10 minutes a week to play with other children. We are dealing with real people for whom this is a real issue.
At a recent event in the Parliament, we heard from parents of young people with autism who are thinking about committing suicide because of the state of their education in Scotland. That is a shame on us all and is unacceptable, but the cost-cutting actions that are sometimes proposed by local authorities, including the officers here in the City of Edinburgh Council, are contributing to this dire situation. I hope that we can all treat the topic with the seriousness that it deserves, collectively take it much more seriously and bring about change.
15:54
I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee for undertaking this work and producing this hugely important report, which I very much support. The report was timely for me as a local MSP given the increasing number of constituents who have raised issues that are facing children with additional support needs.
Some of the initial issues that were raised with me concerned Inverclyde Council’s play 4 all scheme, which aims to provide affordable childcare during the summer holidays for children with ASN, but many more issues quickly came to the fore. Because of the demand, several children were not granted a place, which left families without any viable childcare option during the summer and led to some parents having to take unpaid leave to be at home with their child. Many of those whose child was granted a place on the scheme told me that they were offered four hours of childcare for the whole six-week holiday period. Understandably, that was entirely unworkable for most families, as the disruption to their child’s routine for those four hours meant that it was not worth sending them.
Another point that came up during the discussions was the length of time that it would take for the children to settle into school when they went back after the summer holiday break. The four hours were certainly nowhere near enough to assist with that.
I raised those concerns with Inverclyde Council, which recognised that improvements needed to be made to the play 4 all scheme. Sadly, as the committee’s report highlights and as colleagues across the chamber have indicated, children and young people with ASN face broader systematic challenges than that.
I shared the report with the recently established ASN parent and carer group Inverclyde. After seeing the group advertise activities for families in Inverclyde with ASN children, I reached out to it. I was pleased to see that the offering was being made, given the challenges with the play 4 all situation locally. However, when I met several of the parents who had been attending the group sessions, it was clear that there remains a huge gap in ASN childcare provision in Inverclyde.
Families noted that various local facilities offer ASN-friendly services, such as Waterfront cinema and several of the soft play centres, and that they were happy to pay for those services. However, the initial issue that they came to me with was that the summer holiday childcare options that are available to children with ASN are not on a par with the package that is offered to neurotypical children. Funded play schemes for neurotypical children were offering days and weeks of childcare. One of the big frustrations was that a school in Port Glasgow that is considered to be one of the best schools for children with ASN was closed over the summer. That resource could have been utilised to help children.
I organised a round-table meeting that involved members of the ASN parent and carer group Inverclyde and local councillors to discuss the myriad of issues—from childcare to schooling—that impact children with ASN. Paragraph 29 of the report includes the word “fight”, which others have used, but the whole paragraph is important. It says:
“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 feelings and experiences of the families that I have spoken to and met in Inverclyde. In fact, so many of the experiences that local families face reflect those of families across Scotland.
The Morgan review, which has been touched on, was published in 2020. It considered the post-legislative landscape for additional support learning. The convener spoke about that in her opening comments. I agree with Angela Morgan’s position that her recommendations were “not a quick fix” and that cultural change that will deliver improvements to ASL implementation and ensure meaningful change for children and young people will take time.
When we consider the stigma around mental health, we can see that cultural change can happen. In the past 15 years, society has changed greatly in that regard. I welcome the fact that society has changed, because it means that more people are seeking the help and assistance that they need. The situation that we are discussing today will take a bit of time to resolve, but we have to attempt to lead on policies. I am pleased that the Scottish Government will update the additional support for learning action plan to reflect the relevant recommendations of the committee’s report. The cabinet secretary spoke about the third update coming later this year, and I certainly look forward to reading that.
It is worth noting that some improvements have taken place. First, there are 17,330 pupil support staff in Scotland, which is the highest number on record and represents an increase of more than 2,000 since 2020. Work is also being done on the map of how ASL policy stretches across the education, health and social care sectors to ensure that we can work across boundaries to deliver better support. However, there is still so much more to do.
I again thank the committee for producing this important report and for keeping ASN on the agenda, which will help many households and children who need the support. Crucially, it will help parents. Parents want only the best life chances for their children, and parents of ASN children are absolutely no different in that regard.
16:00
The additional support for learning inquiry that the committee undertook and the discussion that we are having today are crucial if we are to understand some of the big issues and challenges that schools, pupils, parents and staff are facing in Scottish education at this time.
My view is that the inquiry—along with the committee report—has highlighted a range of key issues that must be addressed. As well as thanking the committee for its work, I thank those who gave evidence for providing a wide range of knowledge and experience of what is happening on the ground.
I suspect that the big question on the minds of those who gave evidence, those in the school community and parents up and down the country will be: what now? Will this report lead to action to address the issues that have been raised?
In responding to the report, the education secretary stated:
“Scottish education has an inclusive ethos and over the past 20 years, we have made extensive policy and legislative changes to enable those with additional support needs to thrive as part of their class, their school, and their wider community.”
Unison acknowledges the point about legislation, strategy and policy in its written submission when it states that
“there are some good strategic and policy papers around supporting children”,
but
“these have not been matched with adequate funding to enable their implementation or recruitment, training and support for the staff in order to ensure they can deliver the correct support.”
We can have the very best of policy and strategy papers, and put them into legislation, but if we then fail to put in place the necessary levels of resource, those policies and strategies will not succeed.
The report highlights a range of issues where improvement is needed. Those include poor communication with families; the disproportionate number of children with additional support needs who are being excluded; the call for greater flexibility of learning for pupils with additional support needs; the transition from primary to secondary school, and, indeed, into adulthood; the requirement for public services to work more closely in partnership; the need for continuous professional learning and development training for teachers and learning support staff; the need for guidance on school buildings and the built environment; the need to review specialist school provision; and the difficulties that parents and pupils experience in getting the correct support.
Those are some of the key issues that must be addressed if we are serious about making this report count; they can and should be addressed across a range of professional services that are provided in the public sector. However, that needs overall leadership and drive, which, in my view, must come from the Scottish Government.
More focused funding is required. I know that the committee has asked the Government to do more work to quantify the level of expenditure that is being allocated to additional support for learning. It has also asked Audit Scotland to consider undertaking audit work on that cross-cutting spend. I hope that that will be picked up, as I believe that it is required in order that informed decisions can be made on the finance required to deliver on the policies, the strategies and the legislation for additional support for learning in Scotland.
I reiterate the point that Unison made in its submission:
“Overall, our response is summed up by saying that while we support mainstreaming in principle, it must be sufficiently funded. While there will be some very good practice going on in some schools, it is currently not working well for too many children, those with identified ASN, and other pupils. Despite the best efforts of dedicated teaching and support staff and other education professionals, they do not have sufficient resources and support to deliver the quality learning experience all pupils deserve.”
It also said:
“while we and our members regularly highlight the understaffing and under resourcing, we see no signs of major improvements, particularly given the huge constraints on local government finances.”
It added that cuts are putting
“immense additional pressures on council spending”.
It notes the cuts that have been made to the budget for additional support for learning provision and educational psychologists, with flat-rate funding having been put forward last year, and that
“Spending on mental health services is also being cut–at a time when there remain serious concerns about mental health waiting lists, including access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS).”
It goes on to say that access to such services
“can be patchy and the link with schools is often a postcode lottery.”
We must see a far more joined-up approach to mental health for children and young people if we are serious about making the kind of changes that the committee’s report calls for.
16:06
I thank all those who contributed to the inquiry—parents, carers, teachers and, especially, young people. Their voices are essential to the report and its recommendations. I welcome the fact that the report has been positively received by the Scottish Government and that the Government has committed to updating the ASL action plan in line with the committee’s recommendations. We all know the challenges that we face, and I believe that the Government is sincere in its determination to meet those challenges.
The Morgan review in 2020 set a clear direction for the progress that can be made in ASL. Although the legislative framework is solid, the real challenge lies in translating those principles into effective practice. I think that the Government recognises that there is still work to be done and it is committed to ensuring that inclusive policies are realised in every classroom, which is what is required. Angela Morgan’s recommendations are not a quick fix, but they offer a road map for meaningful, lasting change. It is essential that we embed support for all children and young people as early as possible. That is why we have a highly inclusive legislative framework in place, which covers early learning and childcare, and school settings.
The Government’s approach is anchored in getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—and looks to ensure that no child is left behind. That approach is not about having additional support as an afterthought, and it must not be; it is about creating an education system that actively removes barriers to learning.
The pandemic intensified the challenges in our schools, from attendance to behaviour, and young people are still feeling the effects of disrupted learning. We all recognise that, and our focus remains on building a system that responds to such challenges.
Importantly, we have also seen a significant increase in the number of learners who require additional support. That reaffirms the need for a whole-system approach to inclusivity. ASL is not a side issue; it touches every part of our education, health and social care sectors, which is why we must map how ASL policy spans those areas to better co-ordinate services for young people and their families. The principle of mainstreaming must remain fundamental to our approach.
We have made extensive legislative and policy changes over the past 20 years to help children with additional support needs to realise their potential in classrooms, schools and communities. However, we must recognise that mainstreaming is not without its challenges, as has been said. For some children, specialist environments are more appropriate, and we must remain flexible in ensuring that all pupils get the support that best meets their needs.
We also acknowledge the financial pressures on our education system, which have been exacerbated by austerity and the pandemic.
Despite those challenges, the Scottish Government continues to invest in young people. In 2022-23, local authority spending on ASL reached a record high of £926 million. That included an annual investment of £15 million for councils and £11 million specifically for supporting pupils with complex additional needs. On staffing, we now have 17,330 pupil support staff in Scotland, which is an increase of more than 2,000 since 2020. I am pleased to say that that reflects an on-going commitment to ensuring that teachers and support staff have the resources that they need to try to deliver the best outcomes for every child.
On that note, I recently received correspondence from a constituent who was concerned about Glasgow City Council’s decision to remove the headteacher from one of my local primary schools, with little notice taken of the effect that that is having on pupils, in particular those with additional support needs. Alarmingly, my constituent has been told by the school—somewhat disingenuously, in my view—that funding for one of its pupil support assistants was removed as a result of the announcement that free school meals would not be extended to all primary-age children at this time; that does not make much sense to me. I will write directly to the cabinet secretary on my constituent’s issue; however, I wonder whether it would be possible to correct the apparent misconception that is being promoted by the school.
As we know, the ASL action plan will be updated alongside the release of a progress report this autumn, which will reflect the committee’s recommendations and the changing educational landscape. I look forward to reading that report with keen interest. The ASL project board will also continue to play a crucial role in ensuring that policy evolves to meet the emerging needs of our young people.
I do not pretend that there are not real challenges here, and I know that more must and can be done. However, as I have said, I believe that the Government is sincere in its commitment to take forward the significant recommendations that are set out in the committee’s report. I, for one, will look to hold the Government to that commitment. Mainstreaming, inclusivity and ASL are not just goals; they are principles that shape the kind of Scotland that we all want to see.
We move to closing speeches. It is regrettable that we do not have the committee convener in the chamber for closing speeches when it is a committee debate.
I call Gillian Mackay to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:12
One of the more striking concerns that was raised during the committee’s inquiry is the challenge that is faced by parents when they try to navigate the complex and often opaque systems that are designed to support young people.
In my opening speech, I spoke about the role that co-ordinated support plans should play. Scotland’s education system is not one in which parents and young people should have to fight to get information about their rights, not least when they are in a country that has enshrined the UNCRC in law.
At present, many local authorities make it difficult for parents to engage with support services. One easy remedy would be to place an obligation on councils to proactively inform parents about their rights and to clearly signpost next steps in relation to needs assessments, transition plans and support plans. Simple steps, such as timely communication on the available options, would empower parents, reduce stress and ensure early intervention where it is needed most.
However, in some circumstances, that would not be enough. I am supporting families in North Lanarkshire who are having a hard time getting transport to get their children with an additional support need to school, as a result of a cut in bus entitlement. For some families, not being able to get their child to school is a barrier to the child’s education as a whole. The decision for that cut clearly did not factor in children who have an additional support need but who are in mainstream school. Many of them could tolerate the school bus and were relatively safe in that relatively controlled environment, but the service bus is not appropriate for them. As far as we can find, there was no outreach to those young people or their parents about the impact on them. That example shows, however, that improving communication alone is not a cure-all. Even with the best of intentions, informing parents and young people of their rights does little good if the support services or schools that they are in are overwhelmed.
Despite a recurring £145 million intervention that the Scottish Greens delivered during our time in Government, many local authorities failed to use that cash for the desired purpose of transferring temporary teacher contracts to permanent ones. That has, sadly, resulted in the number of teachers in Scotland falling, and, unfortunately, all indicators point towards teacher numbers continuing to fall. Having fewer teachers, particularly those who specialise in additional support needs, while the number of pupils continues to rise, is a recipe for burn-out and an overwhelmed system.
I was proud that two particular Government commitments, which focus on increased staff levels for those with additional support needs, were introduced through the Bute house agreement.
The first commitment was to develop a programme of accreditation and registration for additional support needs assistants.
The second commitment was to work with the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers to ensure appropriate career progression and pathways for teachers who are looking to specialise in additional support for learning.
Although it was delayed, progress on the first of those two commitments seemed to be progressing positively. However, since the Greens left the room, we have heard nothing about it from the Government.
The second commitment, which was also in the additional support for learning action plan, seems to have stalled as well.
The most recent update to the ASL action plan was published in November 2022 and, despite an initial Government commitment to review the plan this spring, I am glad to hear confirmation that a further update is due soon. I would be particularly keen, as would my colleague, Ross Greer, to hear from the cabinet secretary, either in her closing speech or in writing, with an update on both commitments. We would also be happy to contribute to the upcoming refresh of the ASL action plan.
We recognise the scale of the challenge that the Government faces, but that cannot be met with inaction. It is clear that targeted investment in teacher training and career progression, as well as the expansion of multi-agency support in schools, is crucial to tackling the problems in implementing mainstreaming and access to support.
In the spirit of collegiality, we remain committed to the delivery of those promises, and we are happy to work with the Government on delivering them.
One area in which I am glad that we are making progress—and that will have a positive knock-on effect—is the provision of mental health support services in schools, which guarantees access in school to mental health and wellbeing support. We are far from being in a position where every child has equal access to those services, but the past three six-monthly reports have shown a steady increase in the number of children and young people who access those expanded services. However, the most recent period on which the Government published a report came at the end of 2022, and no further Government reports have been forthcoming. Again, we would be interested in any updated reporting on that.
I was interested in Jeremy Balfour’s comments about anything other than mainstreaming for a young person being seen as a failure.
One thing that I do not often hear being discussed is how we ensure that the young person finds the best place for them. We have spoken about various plans, reviews and support plans, and I am amazed that parents know where to start.
Setting aside the current issues with resource, to address the culture, we need to offer both mainstream and additional support settings as equal options. As Jeremy Balfour noted, we also need to be able to move between them, depending on a change in the child’s or young person’s needs. It is also crucial that the support follows the young person.
It is important that we do not see those issues as individual, with specific and tailored responses to each one. The solution to properly addressing additional support needs and wider issues is to view all of them holistically.
If we are serious about ensuring a fairer education for all, we must ask ourselves how we can reconcile our commitment to inclusion and support for ASN pupils with the fact that classrooms are increasingly crowded and teachers are overwhelmed. I hope that the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report will be a significant stepping stone to achieving that vision.
16:18
It is a privilege to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Before doing so, I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s apology for her not being in the chamber for the closing speeches of the debate.
As many members have done, I thank the committee and those who gave evidence. I also thank the committee for going out of its way to ensure that its report was published in an easy-to-read format, so that the young people and children whom we are talking about were able to gain access to the report in a way that made sense to them and allowed them to give feedback.
I welcomed the involvement of inclusion ambassadors, who brought the words and lived experience of children into the report. It is worth noting that some of the inclusion ambassadors’ findings sat slightly at odds with a substantial amount of the evidence that the committee heard.
It is interesting and right to put on the record that the inclusion ambassadors said that they feel special and that they have kind and understanding teachers. The ambassadors gave evidence that teachers take the time to ask about pupils’ needs and suggested that making connections between teachers and themselves was important in their experience as ASN pupils.
I put that on the record because it is important to understand that, as a number of contributions from members have shown, some people are able to navigate the system successfully, which means that it can be done for all children. It is important that we recognise that. That does not take away from the lived reality of the significant number of parents who contributed evidence that there are massively marked failures in the provision, some of which are postcode orientated and some of which are with the whole system of advice, forms, committees and acronyms that are used. It is clearly true that parents are left fighting every day and that pupils are being let down by the mismanagement of ASL provision. I felt that it was important to point out the experience of the ambassadors, although I do not intend to detract from anything else.
The support that young people need has, in effect, been dismantled over a period of time. As the cabinet secretary rightly pointed out, that is in part because of the massive increase in numbers and the expectation that follows. However, when we look at the provision for speech and language therapy, CAMHS, support assistants and additionally trained teachers with regard to needs, we see a system that is stretched. It is stretched to the point where we hear truly frightening examples of a child being left at the back of the hall, effectively abandoned. We heard contributions that reflected that situation from two geographic areas in Scotland. That is seemingly the way in which provision is handled in some schools for children who find it really challenging to be in class. That goes to the heart of the report and the need for mainstreaming.
A number of members raised the question of masking by pupils. I welcome the Government’s confirmation of a literature review on that. As others have done, I would push to have a date when that will be available. Literature reviews are challenging to do but are not time consuming, and it would be useful to have that, because it would be a powerful contribution to the debate.
There is a strong urgency in the report, given the deficiencies that have been mentioned and which are affecting thousands of parents and pupils. As we have heard, Morgan reported on those many years ago, and the committee found, broadly speaking, exactly the same outcomes, but we are no further forward in that respect. I think that the delays in providing support and specialist provision in mainstreaming have affected the view that parents now take of mainstreaming.
When mainstreaming was originally proposed and rolled out, it was an incredibly effective and supportive way to say that young people, where they are able, have a right to be in mainstream education, to play with other children and to be in an educational environment. The challenge is that, with the increasing number of additional needs, mainstreaming has perhaps stopped being a priority in the provision that has been given. It was easier to remove support from that, thus making it inappropriate for significantly more children at this time.
Time is short, but I would like to finish with just two points. The first is on paragraph 29 of the report, in which the committee rightly said that there are
“disturbing accounts of the impact on children and young people with ASN’s health and mental wellbeing.”
That phrase “disturbing accounts” should not just ring alarm bells but bring the issue to the very front so that we can see exactly what we are going to do about it.
Finally, I will refer to the powerful contribution from my colleague Alex Rowley and simply ask the Government, “You have heard what has taken place in the chamber—what now?”
16:24
It is a pleasure to close this afternoon’s debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It has been an incredibly important debate on an incredibly important report. I, too, place on the record my thanks to the committee members and clerks for producing it, and to the inclusion ambassadors, parents, carers and teachers who came and gave evidence to the committee.
The challenges for Scotland’s education system in dealing with the growing number of young people with additional support needs have been articulated by every speaker. However, before I highlight some of the contributions, I would like to take a moment to look at the simple facts that are before us. The number of pupils with additional support needs has increased significantly. In 2010, 69,587 pupils were classed as needing additional support in school; by 2023, the figure was 259,036 pupils. During the same period, the number of ASN teachers decreased from 3,524 to 2,898. In very simplistic terms, back in 2010, one ASN teacher was supporting 20 pupils; by 2023, that same ASN teacher was supporting 90 pupils. It does not matter whether the increase in the number of ASN pupils is down to better recording or diagnosis—the fact remains that the number of teachers is down.
The cabinet secretary highlighted the resources, which are of course important. She also highlighted the 17,330 support assistants in our education system to deal with these more complex needs. However, so far, that has not been reflected in reality, as the committee’s report so eloquently highlights.
I turn to members’ contributions to the debate. I thank the convener, Sue Webber, for her summary of the report, which highlighted all the issues excellently. I highlight the personal stories that were shared by Willie Rennie and Jeremy Balfour. We heard of a young man being set up to fail, due in part to rotation of staff. That is just not acceptable. It was deeply shocking to hear from Jeremy Balfour that the parents of young people with autism are having to deal with suicidal thoughts because of the state of their education. We also heard of a child who is able to be educated only in isolation and for two days a week. That, if nothing else, is something that we must recognise today and change.
Liam Kerr, Sue Webber and Gillian Mackay all mentioned the disparity in council processes whereby some pupils need formal diagnosis and some can progress without it. That must be addressed. My colleague Liam Kerr highlighted the need for honesty on that issue and said that we need to accept that there is a problem before we can initiate change. That parents and young people are angry was highlighted by many members across the chamber, but particularly by Willie Rennie, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Martin Whitfield.
The cabinet secretary mentioned that the ASL action plan will be produced soon, and I also note her commitment to produce the updated guidance, with the recommendations from the committee, early next year. I sincerely look forward to reading the plan and the guidance.
As we heard many times, the committee’s report describes the situation for families, young people and teachers who are dealing with the new reality as “intolerable”. I will spend some time reiterating the main points that are raised in the report because, quite frankly, its findings illustrate that this SNP Government has let them down.
Reading the evidence that was given to the committee’s inquiry, I was struck by the anger and frustration that parents and carers have felt when trying to get the best support for their child. That includes the difficulties and delays that parents and carers experience in getting the correct support, including long delays in diagnosis and access to support services such as CAMHS. That position was also shared by several educators and teaching unions. I note that the committee considers that such delays are “unacceptable” and recommends that the Scottish Government works closely with bodies such as NHS Scotland, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, CAMHS and COSLA to identify the causes of such lengthy delays and to ensure that we have a more joined-up approach.
Parents and carers also spoke of not being listened to, particularly when they felt that the presumption of mainstreaming was not meeting the needs of their child. Even though the overwhelming view, in written and oral evidence, was that that presumption is laudable and should be supported, concerns were raised about the implementation of the policy and the barriers that are faced in practice when mainstreaming is in place and is the only option. The committee was extremely concerned by what it heard regarding negative personal experiences of ASL provision and the detrimental impact that the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming has had on some pupils.
I join others in commending the work that teachers and support staff do in providing support for pupils with additional support needs, but I am also deeply concerned to hear of the pressures that are leaving them feeling overwhelmed and burned out. Given the increase in pupils with ASN and the fact that teacher numbers are reducing, that is hardly surprising. The truth is that the Scottish Government’s handling of the implementation of ASN provision is yet another example of a gap between policy ambition and implementation.
I thank the committee again for its full and thorough report and I urge the Scottish Government to take forward the recommendations for the mutual benefit of ASN pupils and teachers alike.
I must correct Bill Kidd’s point on the Morgan review. The SNP pledged to implement the Morgan review in this session, but we are now four years on. The review had four recommendations for delivery:
“Values driven leadership”,
“An open ... culture of communication, support and challenge—underpinned by trust, respect and positive relationships”,
“Resource alignment”
and
“Methodology for delivery of knowledge learning and practice development”.
The committee report that is before us highlights the same recommendations. I know that delivery takes time, but time is running out. We are again standing here debating a broken promise from the SNP Government, and it is again Scotland’s children who are paying the price.
16:32
I thank members for contributing to what has been a powerful debate on a subject that is of significant importance to the children and young people of this country. I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of, and challenge on, additional support for learning.
As we have heard, a third of our school population have identified additional support needs. Asking for the Government to act with urgency has been a common theme of the debate. We must continue to work together to address the challenges that remain in our system. That is the only way that we can positively improve the experiences and outcomes for those children and young people. I will reflect on that call to act with urgency.
On Roz McCall’s point about the Morgan review, I am sure that she will also reflect on the progress that has been made thus far through the additional support for learning action plan.
As I outlined in my opening statement and in my response to the committee, we have been working steadily with our partners during this parliamentary session to address the challenges that Angela Morgan identified. We have under way a number of actions that I have alluded to, but there is no quick fix. I recognise that we will need to do much more as we respond to changing need, particularly post pandemic.
Committee members made a number of really important contributions that I want to touch on. Liam Kerr was absolutely right to point to the stark findings on the needs of ASL pupils not being met. That reflects Willie Rennie’s point—which he made when he intervened on me earlier—about the strength of feeling among parents and, often, young people themselves. I think that Roz McCall also spoke about the anger that is felt.
I know that members are probably fed up with my anecdotal stories of when I last taught in schools, but additional support needs are emotive, and I know how frustrating it can be for classroom teachers, too, when that additional support is not in place.
Pam Duncan-Glancy—I know that she has had to leave the chamber—spoke about the power of education and her family’s fight on her behalf. Undoubtedly, she is here today because of her family’s fight. They should not have had to fight: no parent or carer should have to fight for the rights of their children to access education. That has happened too often, as we have heard from members during the debate.
On co-ordinated support plans, Ms Duncan-Glancy was right to point to the differentiation that we see in uptake. She was also right to point to the code of practice, which is being updated to address that anomaly. She should also know that, for some people who are working in our schools, a statutory CSP is not necessarily the path that is appropriate for that young person. As we heard from Jeremy Balfour, needs evolve over time, and we should be careful not to presume that a statutory CSP is always the right approach for every young person.
Gillian Mackay spoke about the levels of workload that are associated with the challenges that classroom teachers face, particularly post pandemic. That was a key feature of my thinking last week in responding to Professor Louise Hayward’s report on qualifications reform. We have to be pragmatic about the bandwidth for reform.
As has rightly been pointed out, the budget is also relevant. Much of my budget, as Ms Mackay alluded to, is not legally committed. However, it is worth my while to point out that the education budget this year stands at a record level, as does spending on additional support needs, at £926 million.
I recognise what the cabinet secretary is saying, albeit that the education budget has decreased to a small extent. However, those are the inputs. The committee and people are desperate to see the outputs. Will the cabinet secretary commit here and now to delivering by 2026 what the committee has demanded for the people?
Mr Kerr wants to talk about inputs and I talked about an input a moment ago. Last year, there was an output of 725 extra pupil support assistants because of additionality from the Government to support additional staff in the system. We can evidence how our inputs are having an impact. I have accepted a range of the committee’s recommendations because I recognise the challenge and the need to continue to support that additionality, which is exactly what the Government is doing.
Ms Mackay made some suggestions about where the additionality that Mr Kerr spoke to might come from. Of course, we are not yet in budget negotiations. I am sure that she will have conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to that end.
I was really sorry to hear the story that Mr Rennie recounted. It shows exactly why things need to improve.
Many of the practical decisions are made not by you but by local authorities. I encourage you to engage with them and to encourage them not to cut back vital services that affect many of the children whom we have been talking about. What discussions will you have with local authorities over the next few months?
Always speak through the chair.
I am more than aware that a range of powers rests with local authorities and not with me as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. That is why the ASL project board, about which Mr Balfour’s colleague Liam Kerr spoke, is important. COSLA is a key member of that board. It has to be a joint endeavour. I meet COSLA regularly on a range of issues, as members might imagine. It will be key to driving the improvements that we need in our schools and to protecting the budget lines, which is the point that Jeremy Balfour alluded to.
In my evidence to the committee last year, I was frank in my assessment of where things are currently working and where there are challenges. Mr Rennie spoke about the challenge of introducing mandatory training when there are changing needs. There is a challenge for the Scottish Government, because I am sure that members will be aware that we cannot direct course content for individual independent universities—nor would I wish to do so, although the committee might wish to consider some of the changes in the approach to initial teacher education that have been adopted in Wales recently. However, in my opening speech, I alluded to my intention that the Government will audit the number of hours that are being taught in ITE on ASN provision. It is important that we hold that data.
On the school estate, which was a key feature of my appearance at the committee earlier in the year, big schools are not, as Mr Rennie knows, a new feature of how we deliver education in Fife. The local authority there chooses to build larger schools because of the communities that it serves. Many schools in Mr Rennie’s constituency—including the village where I grew up—serve a number of smaller villages, and the local authority has a tendency to build larger school estates as a result.
However, I do not accept the idea that ASN has not been considered in school estate design. Since 2007, because of investment from the Government, the quality of Scotland’s school estate has improved from just over 60 per cent being in good or satisfactory condition to the most recent statistics, which were published a matter of weeks ago, showing that more than 91 per cent of our schools in Scotland are now in such condition. That is a dramatic improvement, which I hope Parliament welcomes.
The SFT, as another member mentioned, has set out a 10-point plan on the committee’s recommendations, and I will continue to engage with it to that end.
Ruth Maguire spoke about the challenge with legislation in practice. I agree absolutely with what she said about school culture which, in my experience, is often about the relationships in schools. We have regularly debated behaviour in our schools, and I know that the committee considered that issue, which was also mentioned by the convener in her opening comments. Perhaps Ms Maguire is right that an overt focus on legislation sometimes means that we take our eye off what really matters, which is cultural change. She gave the example of emerging good practice in Ayrshire. My officials will be keen to note the progress that has been made there.
Jeremy Balfour spoke about the importance of ASL specialist teachers. He will know that, as I alluded to in my response to Mr Kerr, we have protected funding for additional support for learning, which has meant that the number of pupil support assistants in Scotland’s schools has increased by 725 in the past year alone.
I am conscious of the time. I thank the committee again for all its work on a hugely important topic in Scotland’s changed education landscape, following the pandemic. The additional support for learning action plan update was going to be published in advance of the committee’s inquiry, but I paused its publication so that the Government could listen to the committee’s findings. I hope that the committee will look at the updated action plan when it is published in October and will recognise that some of the things that it has asked the Government to do today are being taken forward directly through that plan.
16:41
I am delighted to close the debate on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Given that, currently, more than a third of all pupils in our schools have additional support needs, the committee was very keen to undertake the inquiry. It is relatively unusual for the committee to be able to carry out an inquiry on a topic of its choosing. We are usually kept very busy with reactive work, which often involves considering draft legislation, so, when the opportunity arises to do some proactive work, we always take it. When we do, we try to choose a topic that we think will have maximum impact.
Having listened to the cabinet secretary’s response to our report, I think that we can safely say that our inquiry has had an impact. It will help to address some of the barriers that pupils with additional support needs face. The voices of those children and young people, their parents and the carers and teachers who are involved in providing ASL were uppermost in committee members’ minds throughout the inquiry.
As the convener highlighted, although we agree with the policy intention behind the presumption of mainstreaming, the gap between the policy intention and how the policy has been implemented in practice is “intolerable”.
I have listened to the contributions to the debate with great interest, and I was particularly pleased to hear members agreeing with the committee on how important it is that the barriers that are faced by children and young people with additional support needs and by their parents and carers are addressed as a matter of urgency.
The convener mentioned the evidence that we heard on improvements to the existing school estate that would not cost a lot of money but which would greatly improve accessibility for pupils with ASN. Simple examples such as providing high-backed chairs in a particular part of a school where an autistic pupil could go to feel enclosed and private, which would allow them to regulate, were mentioned. Another example was providing a desk with some sensory toys at the back of a classroom. Such small changes can make a huge difference to a pupil with ASN.
We recommended that
“the Scottish Government work with ... local government, and relevant third sector organisations, and pupils themselves, to develop a suite of guidance to make existing schools as accessible as possible to those with sensory needs.”
Therefore, it is great to hear that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust have developed a comprehensive step-by-step plan to address the issues that the committee raised. We will take a keen interest in that.
Our inquiry also considered resources. We were concerned to hear that resources for ASL provision have reduced over time, as has been discussed in the chamber. We recommended that
“a more inclusive and joined-up approach towards resourcing more generally”
be adopted to
“ensure that services for pupils with additional support needs can be met.”
For our final theme, we looked at the use of remedies for parents and carers when things are not working well and at the tribunal service in particular. Under the 2004 act, having a co-ordinated support plan is the only way to access the tribunal service, although there is also a route to access it through the equalities legislation. We were all too aware that the use of the tribunal should be adopted only as a last resort and that, ideally, decisions about additional support for children and young people should be discussed and resolved as early as possible, led by parents—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will.
To return to my earlier intervention, because of the incorporation of the UNCRC in Scotland, provisions are more readily available to children and, in particular, to their parents that might mean that local authorities and the Scottish Government find themselves in court in relation to situations that should not arise if matters are dealt with properly at earlier stages. Does the member agree?
I certainly agree with Mr Whitfield, and I thank him for his intervention.
As I said, those decisions should be discussed and resolved as early as possible, led by parents, carers and those who deliver support. However, when things break down, it is imperative that families have access to the tribunal and can source appropriate legal support to assist them, regardless of their financial situation.
In evidence, we heard that the number of pupils with a CSP is extremely small and that the criteria that are set out for qualifying for a CSP are a barrier that prevents pupils and parents and carers from being able to access the tribunal. We argued that all children and young people should have access to remedies and that access to the tribunal should be open to everyone.
We also asked for further clarity on the use of plans to support pupils with ASN and recommended that the Scottish Government should consider
“the compliance of these plans with GIRFEC and the UNCRC.”
I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to considering the compliance of the ASL legislation with the UNCRC and that work is on-going to provide further clarity on the relationship between the CSP and other children’s and young people’s plans within a staged intervention model.
I turn to the contributions that were made in the debate. Liam Kerr highlighted the great need for ASN provision, the high number of pupils whose needs are not met and the need to prioritise the area. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke from a personal perspective about her journey and said that some people’s opportunities are limited and that there are too many barriers for ASN pupils. Change is needed at pace.
Gillian Mackay noted that there are issues with the co-ordinated support plans that require to be resolved. Willie Rennie highlighted issues with the system that mean that people have to fight for their rights and said that the system should be there to support them.
Ruth Maguire shared some of the lived experience of pupils and parents that we heard about during the committee’s proceedings and the difficulties that people face with navigating the system, highlighting an implementation gap. Stuart McMillan also highlighted the issue of families having to fight for ASL implementation and the huge gap in provision in Inverclyde.
I finish by echoing the convener’s words. We owe it to all children and young people with additional support needs and their parents and carers to ensure that the barriers that they face in our schools are addressed without further delay, and to get it right for every child.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Business Motions