Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the word “complaints” probably does not fully do justice to the issues that we are discussing? They are not so much individuals who are complaining as they are individuals who have seen something that they perceive to be against the public interest, which they wish to highlight but find in doing so that the organisation closes in on them due to its culture.

I think that the cabinet secretary understands what I am saying. Using the word “complaints” makes it sound like the issue that Ross Greer raised. We are not talking about people who are of a complaining disposition or who are in that space. We are talking about people who have heard or witnessed something that has led them to believe that they should do something as a professional because it would be against the public interest not to do so.

I will come to the frequency that I am proposing in a second. In answer to the specific issue that John Mason has raised, I understand the importance of risk-based and sampling approaches in inspections. However, the fact of the matter remains that many schools in Scotland have not had inspections for many years, which I do not think is acceptable in our system, because it leaves parents uninformed, teachers unsupported and learners unprotected from poor or stagnant practice.

On the second point that John Mason has raised, I think that a three-year cycle would not be overly burdensome—it would be modest, achievable and proportionate. It would ensure that every school received a visit within a reasonable timeframe without overloading the inspection body. Importantly, the amendment is consistent with the bill’s structure, because section 30 currently allows the chief inspector to determine inspection intervals while also allowing ministers to set minimum frequencies via regulation.

Amendment 306 simply establishes a clear statutory baseline expectation for school inspection once every three years. It does not conflict with the chief inspector’s role, and it provides an essential guarantee for learners and parents.

Amendment 305 is a consequential change to make it clear that the inspector’s discretion to determine the frequency of inspections is subject to that requirement. It does not negate the risk-based approach that John Mason mentioned earlier.

The upholding of high standards in that context would be in relation to the standard against which the inspector would operate rather than any kind of action that would rest on the inspector as a result of the inspection. I hope that that makes sense.

As I was about to say, it is worth noting that public trust in inspection is heavily influenced by whether people feel that they have been heard. When parents understand how the process works and feel that their concerns matter, they are more likely to view inspection reports as credible. Likewise, when teachers know that their views and concerns are taken seriously, they are more likely to act on inspection feedback and, when learners see their experience reflected in the findings, they gain a greater sense of ownership of their education.

Amendments 319 and 170 form part of a wider reform agenda that seeks to put participation, inclusion and trust at the heart of the education system. They ask very little in legislative terms but will deliver a great deal in terms of impact. I urge the committee to support the amendments.

I move amendment 319.

If there is no baseline in legislation as to how frequently, at a minimum, an inspection should happen, we could slip back into the situation that we have currently, which I do not find acceptable and which I think that Willie Rennie does not find acceptable either.

My amendments are well meaning—if members will forgive the verbosity on the side of their presenter. The idea is to establish a statutory expectation. It is in law that inspections will happen, but they do not happen currently. I have heard Willie Rennie speak about that issue in the chamber in relation to his constituency. It is a real issue that I think we should seek to address in the bill.

I shall press on, convener. I am driving at transparency, which is critical, because nobody wants schools to operate in the fog of uncertainty about when an inspection will come or how frequently they should happen. Neither parents and communities nor school leaders and teachers should be kept guessing.

Amendments 305 and 306 would give structure and predictability to inspections. Together, the amendments aim to professionalise and systematise—I hope that I have not invented that word—the inspection regime by bringing Scotland into alignment with international comparators. In England, Ofsted inspects state schools on a regular cycle, typically every four years; in Wales, it is every three years. I am not proposing anything all that radical; I am proposing that we, in Scotland, follow suit—or, in some respects, because of the lack of consistency and frequency of inspections, catch up.

Amendment 310 is an alternative approach to amendments 155 and 158, which would remove the Scottish ministers’ role in inspections entirely, including the provision that the chief inspector

“must comply with any written request”

to carry out an inspection. I think that that debate might have been dealt with in the session that I was not able to attend, last week.

The proposals that are put together are fully consistent with the bill as introduced. The explanatory notes to the bill make it clear that, although there is provision for ministers to set the inspection frequency by regulation—I think that that is correct—the bill does not provide a statutory inspection cycle or follow-up duty. By enshrining a three-year cycle and mandatory follow-up, the amendments would fill a structural gap without undermining the flexibility or judgment of the chief inspector.

There is lots of evidence from other bodies that supports the idea of having a regular inspection, and I urge the committee to consider the amendments together. They are not partisan proposals; they are practical reforms that are rooted in evidence. They are aligned with my concern about the need for a change in culture, and they would benefit teachers, school leaders, learners and parents.

I move amendment 305.

I take the point that George Adam is making. I am not dismissing either his point or the point that John Mason raised.

I think that Ken Muir’s position is that the establishment of the independent office of the chief inspector is a great opportunity to address the issues, particularly the cultural issues, around inspection that I am trying to highlight. All of my gathering of personal evidence from listening to Professor Muir has convinced me that we can have a different approach to school inspections in Scotland. I do not quite understand why having a frequency of around every three years would overburden school leaders and teachers.

The cabinet secretary knows full well that I have great expectations about the trustworthiness of the chief inspector. So much hangs on the individual who will be the chief inspector, the culture that they will operate in their broader remit and how they will use their independence to the best effect.

However, I have concerns on behalf of the chief inspector; I am concerned that, in a flight of fancy, he might agree that we should do inspections every three years, given that we are being told that we will not be able to do them every three years because there will not be enough of anything to provide such an inspection regime, which would be the same as what is already provided in other parts of the United Kingdom. That concerns me.

I cannot speak for the committee, because I am not a member of it, but I cannot be the only one who is concerned. I am sure that members of the committee must be concerned to hear that we will not be able to have a more regular and cyclical approach to inspections because we do not have enough inspectors, or because we cannot—

Of course.

On the basis of that helpful clarification from Martin Whitfield, I will not press amendment 305, but I will give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy.

I imagine that John Mason has a point, but, in effect, he makes my point for me, because it has now become a feature of teacher employment that a large number of teachers have no permanent employment contract. As I will come on to, that creates all kinds of problems for those professionals—they are professionals—who cannot get on with the rest of their lives. They cannot establish themselves financially, and they cannot apply for certain products that might require them to have a permanent position of employment.

I understand why John Mason offers his intervention, but my amendment is grounded in the experiences of teachers and covers an issue that we should address.

Amendment 304 also provides that an inspection must cover

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

Those issues have been well covered in the chamber and elsewhere.

Finally, the amendment states:

“such other matters as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.”

I am not seeking to be overly prescriptive, which is why that line in the amendment is included. I want the chief inspector to be fully independent and completely free to make observations and reports in relation to the broad remit that they will have in carrying out their function.

The first pillar of amendment 304 is

“the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies”.

I make no apology for raising the rising incidence of violence and disruption in Scottish schools, which is affecting staff and students. The Scottish media has recently reported a disturbing surge in classroom violence, including assaults on teachers, support staff and even other pupils. There are such headlines in all our news outlets—The Courier, the Daily Record and BBC Scotland all speak of a discipline crisis in schools, with staff describing their daily exposure to aggression and fear.

It is therefore vital that the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies are monitored and that—this is the critical point—good practice is shared and concerns are highlighted and remedied. I think that we all agree on the point, which I made in our earlier debate, that school leadership is a critical factor in the learning environment, particularly for discipline. It is therefore a crucial observation that school discipline is contingent on the quality of the learning environment, which is the second part of amendment 304, so it ought to be at the forefront of consideration during an inspection.

Education is not only about academic performance; it is about the development of healthy and resilient young people. That is what the curriculum for excellence and the pillars are all about. Concerns arise about whether the learning environment is dealing with the whole person, rather than just one aspect. I acknowledge that that is the danger of league tables, which highlight one aspect of a school’s performance, perhaps without any recognition or cognisance of the other issues that create a holistic learning environment.

The recent mental health crisis among young people has brought the issue into stark relief. Multiple reports across all forms of media have highlighted increased numbers of referrals to child and adolescent mental health services, long waiting times for mental health support and a growing number of pupils disengaging from school altogether. We have frequently discussed non-attendance at school, which is at critical levels. School staff who are already overstretched are often the first responders to mental distress, but they are rarely recognised or supported in that role. Those factors all contribute to the learning environment.

An inspection framework that ignores wellbeing is therefore out of step with the reality in schools and the priorities, as I understand them, of Scottish Government policy, including the national performance framework. By including wellbeing explicitly in the inspection criteria, amendment 304 will ensure that we evaluate not just what is taught but how young people experience their education. Are they safe? Are they supported? Are they thriving?

I understand—or I think that I understand—the cabinet secretary’s point. I am not seeking, through amendment 304, to restrict an inspector’s ability to inspect schools in the way that they, as an independently operating agent, feel is appropriate to the establishment that they are in. However, there are some issues common to the education system that deserve a proper underpinning in statute to ensure that they are looked at and that there is an independent voice speaking truth to power—to Parliament and Government—about what is happening in our schools, without fear or favour.

I understand the discomfort about there being too much detail in the amendment, but if there is not sufficient understanding of what the detail leads to, we are no further forward. It is great that we will have an independent inspector. My party, among others, has campaigned for that development, which I think we welcome, but at the same time, we need to be sure that the inspections are of a nature and a culture, and have sufficient elements, to address the fundamental issues that we all know exist in the system.

I will move on to the next pillar, which is the morale and wellbeing of teachers. I know that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that is a fundamental issue, the root causes of which we would probably all broadly agree on. Including the morale and wellbeing of teachers is deliberate on my part. I believe that it is a necessary cultural intervention, which I will come back to with my later amendments.