Seòmar agus comataidhean

John Mason makes a good point. The issue is not unique to this situation. Whenever there is an evaluation or assessment of a workplace, behaviours would have to be evidenced that demonstrate that certain situations are prevailing. It is not just about opinion. It would be evidenced by, as I say, demonstrated behaviours and reported incidents, because we need to listen to our teachers.

I have a concern, which I will come back to later, that our teachers feel a little beaten down and do not feel sufficiently confident in their own voice to speak up for themselves. The EIS has repeatedly raised concerns about the nature of inspections and how they might lead to the undermining of teacher professionalism, with members reporting that the process is often stressful, unpredictable and poorly aligned with educational priorities.

Amendment 304 is an attempt to address that by asserting that inspections engage with and give weight to the views and professional expertise of educators. It puts their voice at the centre of the inspection. That does not mean that the inspectors must accept, as John Mason says, every view uncritically. It means that they must recognise that teaching is a profession, and that teachers are not merely implementers of policy but reflective practitioners with insight, experience and skill. To go back to my earlier points about school violence, we need to listen more carefully, and directly, to our teachers.

I will move my remarks along, as I can tell that I am testing the patience of the committee, but these are important considerations.

A growing proportion of newly qualified teachers are being placed on temporary or short-term contracts. I understand the business logic behind that, but it is leading to instability in staffing and less consistency for learners. That lack of permanence and continuity undermines a school’s ability to establish and maintain a strong culture of discipline and respect. Younger, more inexperienced staff with limited classroom management experience and minimal job security are being asked to manage increasingly complex behaviours in settings with reduced staffing, fewer classroom assistants and rising levels of need.

It is vital that inspections ensure that not only pupils but teaching professionals are safe and looked after, which is why I have included provision for that in amendment 304. For an inspection to be truly effective, it must assess whether the school has all the skills, expertise and personnel that it needs in order to be successful. There is no point in a school’s having first-class facilities without the correct—or enough—personnel to utilise those.

Amendment 304 requires inspectors to take account of

“the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment”

and

“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”.

That is essential to understanding the culture and diversity of experience in a school. If there is no diversity of experience, an establishment is less likely to succeed. We must take that into account when inspecting schools.

Putting all those elements together, including my catch-all at the end of amendment 304, we have a coherent framework that aligns inspection with the broader values and goals of Scottish education: equity, excellence, wellbeing, professionalism and learner empowerment. Without such alignment, inspection risks becoming a hindrance rather than a help. With the elements that I have described, inspection can become a key driver of change and improvement.

I know that I have gone on a bit, but, as members can probably tell, I feel passionately about the opportunity that an independent chief inspector will bring to transform the culture in our schools. It is about not just changing how we inspect our schools but the purpose of inspection; it is about saying that what matters most in Scottish education is not just that our learners achieve but that they thrive, progress and are taught by professionals who are trusted and respected. That is what amendment 304 enshrines. It describes the standard that is worthy of being aspired to. I therefore commend amendment 304 to the committee.

Some of you will be thinking that I am making up for my lack of attendance last Wednesday night, but I genuinely believe in the elements of amendment 304 and I lay it before the committee for your consideration.

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.

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 will speak only to my amendment 319 and in support of amendment 170, in the name of Sue Webber. These are short but significant amendments that seek to align the operation of the new inspection system with the highest standards of transparency, inclusion and responsiveness. They sit pretty comfortably with the debate that we have just had on the previous group.

Amendment 319 would require the chief inspector, in exercising any of their functions, to do so in a way that ensures effective communication and engagement with all stakeholders in the education system, including learners, parents, carers, educators, education authorities and national bodies, on the foundational principle that those who are affected by public service delivery should have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with how those services are scrutinised and improved. The amendment would bring that principle into the heart of the chief inspector’s statutory duties.

Amendment 170, which I support, complements that by requiring the chief inspector to

“consider all areas of work by the educational establishment”

and to

“consider outcomes for persons undertaking qualifications in the educational establishment”.

I refer to the OECD review of the curriculum for excellence, which noted that stakeholders in Scotland often feel disconnected from national agencies in decision making. It recommended stronger consultation, co-construction and dialogue, and the amendments would operationalise that vision. Similarly, the Muir review made it clear that national bodies must engage more directly and transparently with schools and communities, that that engagement must be structured and not ad hoc, and that it must be part of how the chief inspector operates and not a box-ticking exercise. That is what amendment 319 would achieve.

I am concerned about the cabinet secretary’s latter comments in relation to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 309 and its use of the word “must”. Unless the word “must” is used, there will be no need for ministers to do anything. What the minister has said means that Parliament has no way of creating the circumstances in which a minister must make regulations, and I am a bit worried about that.

I sense that the cabinet secretary wishes to make an intervention.

I think that I have explained my concern about what we have heard in the consideration of this section of the bill about the capacity, the resources and the idea of regular inspections. I believe that the latter are fundamental to the whole area of cultural change and that they also support the profession and school leaders and shed true light on what is happening in our schools for the benefit of learners and their parents.

I will withdraw the amendments in my name on the basis that there might be the possibility—as I think that I heard—that we can talk in detail about the issue before stage 3.

Amendment 305, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

I understand and respect those concerns. However, having transparency about the fact that whistleblowers were going to the officer concerned would be an important part of encouraging and supporting a culture of transformation with regard to whistleblowing. Currently, as I know that Ross Greer is fully aware, people have a negative connotation of whistleblowing. As legislators and public servants who have an interest in reforming Scotland’s public services across the board, we should want to try to change the perceived culture that exists within organisations, so that people feel empowered to discreetly, confidentially and anonymously—to begin with, perhaps—speak up.

In comparison with my amendments on inspection, with these amendments I am not trying to be overprescriptive about how whistleblowing would work. However, it is important that it works. I invite the committee to support my amendments. The cost of silence is too high and the moral imperative that I mentioned earlier is too strong. We are talking about the public interest. This is too important not to deal with now, and the opportunity to do the right thing is sitting right in front of us with these amendments.

I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said and I assure her that my intention is to reinforce and empower the independence of the chief inspector rather than to curtail or limit it in any way. I have already said to her privately that my vision is of a powerful chief inspector who would be the equivalent of the Auditor General for Scotland: someone who would be willing to speak up and speak truth to Parliament—to power, in effect. I do not see their assessing the elements and implementation of current education policy in Scotland—as per my amendment 346—as marking their own homework. However, I look forward to discussing those matters further with the cabinet secretary, and I will not press the amendment at this time.

Amendment 346, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 347 and 21 not moved.

Amendments 14 to 16 and 93 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

After section 39

Amendment 348 not moved.

Section 40—Other reports

Amendments 185 and 349 not moved.

Amendment 186 moved—[Sue Webber]—and agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.

After section 42

Amendment 350 not moved.

Section 43—Powers of entry and inspection

Amendments 187 and 188 not moved.

Sections 43 to 45 agreed to.

Section 46—Necessary improvements: referral to Scottish Ministers

Amendment 189 not moved.

Section 46 agreed to.

Section 47—Preliminary notice of enforcement action

Amendments 190 to 195 not moved.

Section 47 agreed to.

Section 48—Enforcement direction

Amendments 196 to 205 not moved.

Section 48 agreed to.

Section 49—Publication of documents

Amendment 94 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Ross Greer].

Ms Duncan-Glancy knows me only too well; the word curious is probably one of many words that might be applied to me. I am curious about what the frequency of inspection would be. I understand the point that Martin Whitfield made, but I am concerned that we will leave this debate without being entirely clear about what we are going to end up with.

I am seeking a frequency of inspection that is not out of line with other parts of the United Kingdom. We have a situation in Scotland where our regime of inspections has, frankly, pretty much collapsed under Education Scotland. There were schools that went a decade without any inspection—and not just a few. I do not think that that is fair.

If a school is inspected any less often than every three or four years, a whole cohort of young people will go through an institution where there might be issues that could be rectified and where there are cultural issues that might be transformative and they will have been completely lost. The public would, rightly, be concerned to hear that we do not have such a regime in place or the number of inspectors that are required to do that properly in Scotland’s schools.

The concern that the cabinet secretary expressed about the chief inspector using a light-touch model is pretty much what happens currently, which is that—and I do not wish to be disparaging—inspections happen once every blue moon.

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.