Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty defining moment in the work to reform Scotland’s education system. It is important that the committee and the Parliament approach all the decisions that we take about it very seriously. We have had much discussion on the amendments to the bill that explored how we can bring clarity and coherence to the system and create a system that is not driven by assessment and, instead, is driven by the curriculum and by what learners and employers need in the future.

My amendments in the group seek to address that point. As it stands, the bill fails to grasp what was said by the OECD, Professor Graham Donaldson, Professor Mark Priestley, Professor Kenneth Muir, the international council of education advisers and, most importantly, all Scotland’s teachers, which is that it is absolutely crucial that we do more to ensure that the curriculum and assessment functions work in a more suitable way for learners in Scotland. We were promised that the bill would do that sort of reform, but it was silent; Education Scotland’s functions are only being brought into the bill through amendment.

The amendments are not about adding complexity; they are about removing duplication, confusion and contradiction by creating a dedicated body to lead on the curriculum, as the stage 1 report and many experts have called for. This would be a coherent system that would ensure that the curriculum drives qualifications and not the other way around.

I will start where Ross Greer left off, because I understand his concern about the regularity of meetings. If a meeting were to be put in just because it had to happen, that could become quite cumbersome. I will listen to what others have to say about that, but I take his point seriously.

This group of amendments is about embedding a culture of meaningful consultation. We have spent quite a lot of time this morning talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration by the national qualifications body, and the amendments seek to strengthen those things in order to overcome some of the concerns that we have had in the past about the SQA, perhaps, digging in its heels with regard to whether it should be talking to other people or taking on board their views. This is an attempt to try to avoid that happening again.

I get that culture change is difficult to legislate for, but there are lessons that we have to learn, and I see no reason why we would not put something in legislation to give a nudge, at the very least, to the relevant culture that we are hoping to achieve. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group.

My amendment 242 strengthens the consultation duty between qualifications Scotland and the strategic advisory council by requiring them to meet at least once a quarter—notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the timescales, which I am prepared to consider as the debate goes on—and, additionally, at any time that either party considers it necessary.

The amendment also removes the caveat that qualifications Scotland need only consult the SAC where it appears appropriate for it to do so. Again—and this is much like our previous discussion—the SQA might have felt in the past that it was not necessarily appropriate for it to consult particular organisations or bodies that all of us would probably have accepted that it would have been useful for it to have consulted. Therefore, amendment 242, in my name, takes out what I suppose is a sort of get-out clause for the qualifications body.

There is also an opportunity to trigger consultation with qualifications Scotland and the SAC. It means that, if we again find ourselves in the sort of situation that we had with higher history, there is an opportunity for the advisory council to say, “We need to have a meeting to discuss this”—bearing in mind the council’s role and who would be on it—and the same would apply in the other direction, so that qualifications Scotland could seek the council’s advice.

I think that that is crucial, given that the SAC is intended to be a much-needed platform that will include the voices of learners, teachers, practitioners, parents and other stakeholders representing wider society—voices that I think have been missing in the past. We must do everything that we can in the bill to create the structures that will develop the culture that we know is desperately needed, and the amendment makes it clear that Scotland’s new qualifications body would be publicly accountable to those whom it serves and would give a place to the lived experience of learners and their families. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 242.

We are minded to support many of Ross Greer’s amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield’s comments about committees are important and we have to remember what the role of Parliament is. Nonetheless, as he and Ross Greer recognised, too often the recommendations of committees, such as this one and others, can be cast aside. We do a lot of work and we hear from a lot of people. It is important that, at the very least, due regard should be paid to them.

The purpose of specifying protected characteristics very specifically allows for an understanding and analysis of age and race. Both those aspects are defined as protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010.

My amendment 229 does not suggest getting rid of words such as “higher”; it suggests only that we make the naming clear, which would mean that there would be the qualification title that people are used to, plus the number, so that people who are not examiners or who are not knee-deep in the qualifications system would be able to understand. On that basis, would the cabinet secretary be minded to support amendment 229?

I appreciate that clarification, but, at this stage, given that I do not immediately recall our hearing much evidence on the inspection of home schooling, if Sue Webber were to move amendment 187, I would probably be inclined to abstain, although I would be open to having discussions about what an amendment on that issue could look like at stage 3. However, at this point, I do not feel that I have enough evidence to fully inform my position on the matter.

I understand that. In any consultative or advisory group or committee, there are always some discrepancies when it comes to those with lived experience and people who are representing public bodies and the support that comes with that. However, it would not be sensible for us not to include some of them in those discussions, particularly in an advisory role. I have drafted the amendment in a way that seeks to be as inclusive as possible.

Other amendments in the group seek to ensure that support is provided for the membership to engage in as wide a way as possible. There are also other amendments, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which look at how to have that networked approach and, in particular, how to support children and young people to have their voices heard.

My amendment 252 seeks to expand duties within the SAC to require it, for example, to consult with the wider network of expertise, including children and young people, as well as members of the teaching profession. I have tried to achieve balance between ensuring that there is coherence in the system and, therefore, some representation of the public body, and ensuring that the system seeks to take a networked approach as opposed to the hierarchical approach that it has previously taken, which has stifled some progress.

We have seen good examples of that networked approach. Scottish Teachers Advancing Computing Science, for example, is a great network of teachers who are seeking to improve that particular subject and assessment around it. We know that there are a lot of networks that can support representation on those groups, which is what this suite of amendments seeks to do.

Amendment 251 would require the council to consult Education Scotland on appropriate matters, with the aim of reinforcing collaboration. That is a theme throughout my amendments.

Amendment 250 is linked to amendments 251 and 252, and would expand the duties by requiring the council to consult with networks. Again, that speaks to Ross Greer’s concern about imbalance and the importance of ensuring that networks of children and young people, but also the professions, are able to engage in the process as best as possible. The reference to care-experienced young people is especially important, because too often decisions concerning them can be made without their input. The committee has heard a lot of evidence in that respect, so that is particularly important.

Amendment 253 provides for definitions that mirror those that are used elsewhere in the bill, and ensures consistency with other amendments in my name in this group.

I move amendment 245.

Would the regulations be laid under the affirmative procedure? Is that appropriate? Would they be made under the negative procedure? What say would the Parliament have over the regulations on the membership?

I thank the convener for inviting me to speak. I ask for two seconds to get my notes up to support my contribution.

As Ross Greer has already pointed out, my amendments in the group would change the name of the advisory council to “governing council”. This is about building a stronger, more independent and more accountable system of governance around the education inspectorate, turning it into an organisation that is trusted by the profession and the public alike. Renaming the advisory council would signal a fundamental shift from a body that advises to one that helps to govern.

This is not just semantics, although I appreciate that members might consider that to be the case. I take Ross Greer’s point about the word “governing”, but I am talking about reinforcing the independence and legitimacy of inspection. If inspection is to lead to real improvement, it has to reflect the realities of the classroom, not the corridors of government. Amendment 326 proposes that we give teaching professionals a majority on the governing council to ensure that those who are closest to learning help to shape how it is evaluated. Aside from the renaming amendments, that is my main amendment in the group.

Trust in inspection comes from transparency, credibility and the practitioner voice. The amendments take a vital step towards restoring that trust by creating a governance model that is representative, authoritative and independent. Amendment 311 would change the name of the advisory council to “governing council”, and amendments 314, 324, 325, 327, 329, 330, 335, 336, 343 and 352 are consequential.

Finally, amendment 326 would create a majority on the governing council of teachers and college teaching staff to reinforce the need for the inspection function to represent and respond to the current and evolving needs of learners, teachers, college teachers and training providers.

Amendment 326 is just about providing a majority; it is not about entirely filling the positions, so there would be space for others on the advisory council.

In principle, I support what the member is trying to do, so I am encouraged to hear that there is potential scope to incorporate such a change at stage 3. I agree with Willie Rennie that we could look at the question of accreditation more generally and what we will do with the structures.

Although we have had much discussion about the bodies, where we might place the accreditation function and whether we should have a new body, we really need to go into stage 3 with options available to us. We should incorporate what the member has tried to do in the amendments, but not until stage 3.