Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what you say loud and clear. I have to say that I was hugely impressed by the workers whom we met earlier in the week, and I give all credit to your organisation for the work that they are doing. The tone of my question was not critical. We are trying to understand what has happened with the money and what it has replaced. Has there been genuine additionality? Is new activity happening as a result, or are we seeing money that had been in the public sector being given a role elsewhere? I am not casting aspersions on how things are being performed at the moment. It is important for us to understand whether more is being done or whether things are being done differently.

Finally, I want to ask about the precariousness of funding. Your written submission makes some comment on that, and I know that that is a core issue for local authorities and headteachers in seeking to sustain engagement over a long period of time. Although the amount of money has been reduced this year, the Scottish Government has given a guarantee in respect of that type of activity over the coming years to the end of this parliamentary session. However, the challenge is that the money is set against the local government budget. What will happen if the interventions that we are talking about are taken out and the money has to be used to plug gaps? I took from the written submissions—from Barnardo’s Scotland’s submission in particular—that that is a challenge and that we have to see the issue in the context of local government budgets. Is that fair to say?

Perhaps Maureen McAteer can start off. I will then come to Jim Wallace.

On Professor Ainscow’s point about quick fixes and timescales, I note that the attainment challenge started in 2016 and we have spent £1 billion of taxpayers’ money on it. When would you expect to see discernible progress? After all, six years does not really seem like a quick fix—it is the entirety of a child’s secondary education.

I will come back later to my substantive question about the other Ps in Dundee being “public pounds” and the substantial cuts that are being made at the moment.

I want to ask about the allocation of resource. As you will recognise, part of the reason for the inquiry is that significant changes have been made to how the resource that the Government spends on behalf of the Scottish taxpayer—and which is, rightly, significant—is allocated across Scotland. I have asked ministers questions on this, but I do not think that I have had much of an answer. There seems to be a move away from an analysis of multiple deprivation, although I recognise that there is poverty in all parts of the country and that the money is being spread more widely. Do you think that the recent changes to the allocation of that money will be beneficial to the educational recovery of the most deprived children and communities in Scotland?

I understand the limitations. Do you understand the rationale for the change? Have you heard anyone explain it?

Is that data being used to allocate the funding?

My understanding is that the money has been allocated according to the traditional funding formula.

Dr Robertson, when the First Minister announced the initial funding in 2016, she said that the attainment challenge would

“focus specifically on, and provide additional funding for, literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing in primary schools in our most deprived areas. A large proportion of the Attainment Fund has been allocated to the ... local authorities which have the highest”

number or

“concentration of pupils living in poverty.”

The rationale was quite clear at the time. However, Dundee has had its funding from that fund cut by 79 per cent. What do you think the impact of that will be on the poorest people in my community?

I share some of those concerns, and I am sure that colleagues will ask about them later.

I wish to ask Professor Francis about the allocation of resource to the most deprived areas. It sounds to me like the work that you have done has been directed at this area of making change. We are facing a 79 per cent cut in Dundee, as I have said, so with £4 in every £5 spent supporting 129 staff, we are looking at the loss of more than 100 staff who are working with the most vulnerable young people in the city. You will understand why I am animated by the decision. Do you think that such a change will support the kind of change that you are looking for?

I am not sure that that level of agreement makes a big difference to the young people in my home city of Dundee who are not getting the improved outcomes that they are looking for. We are now looking at the biggest gap that we have ever had. I note that you have told us to be cautious about focusing on attainment, but I am not going to be cautious about it. I want to see better attainment, particularly for the kids from the poorest backgrounds. It is not the only thing, but it is incredibly important.

As I have said, we now have the biggest attainment gap that we have ever had. We are now six years on and £1 billion down. I recognise that we have had the pandemic in the middle of that, and it is a huge issue, but the fact is that we had not really made any discernible progress before the pandemic. In fact, things were going backwards in a lot of places.

To me, this is not about quick fixes. Actually, there has been policy consensus on and agreement with the Government’s approach to this issue for a long time now, but we are not seeing the difference that we would have hoped to have seen. Is it not fair to say that?

I will close on this point, convener. We have heard a really useful observation on the comparison with other comparable cities and urban areas in England. I am thinking, for instance, about areas in which progress has been limited by persistent disadvantage, deep poverty or multiple deprivation—we could describe it in different ways. If we were to cut funding by 60 per cent across the board for those most deprived communities—or “challenge authorities” as they are called in Scotland—what results would we see?