Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is simply a terminology question, so a yes or no answer would be great, if that is possible. I just want to understand the issue better. The syllabus and the content did not shrink, and they will not shrink in the coming year, either. It is what is externally assessed that will be narrowed, to allow more focus on teaching and learning. Is that a better way of putting it?

Earlier, we heard that the syllabus for students and the course requirements in terms of content did not shrink, but that the externally examined aspects of the curriculum narrowed. That clarity was helpful. We know that the situation will be the same for the exam results that will come out in August 2023. When does the SQA anticipate returning to the pre-pandemic breadth of content for external examination? It would be helpful to know that.

There is also the issue of consistency. Will the awards in August 2023 and August 2022 be comparable, by and large? Given that there are issues around comparability, it would be helpful to know that.

Due to time constraints, I will roll in a third aspect to my question—it would be really helpful if I could get answers on all three parts. Professor Louise Hayward is looking at what should be externally examined and at that balance more generally. Is it anticipated that the SQA will not return to the previous levels of external assessment because Professor Hayward might recommend something completely different? Why would we return to the old way of doing things when we are in a transition stage to a new way of doing things?

There are three aspects to that question, and I hope that you can pick up on all of them.

I will not come back in with a question, but I just wanted to say that I thought that coursework never left, because it was part of the syllabus. It could be internally assessed rather than returning to external examination. I will leave that thought there.

I have a question that I want to ask later, but I will ask part of it now. We are talking about “lost learning”—learning that has been lost because of the disruption of Covid and because of a slimmed-down syllabus or a slimmed-down external examination diet, which will be the case again next year.

I want to be clear about the language that we use. Are we talking about “lost learning” because young people have gaps in their learning because schools were not open, or are we talking about it because of a slimmed-down syllabus in the classroom? Those are two different things, and I would like to be clear about the language.

I do not think that Michael Marra got an answer to his question about where lost learning is mapped and about its knock-on effects. For example, are active discussions taking place with universities about science, which is heavily content based and involves building blocks of learning? If a bit of the syllabus is taken out, that has to be picked up at first-year undergraduate level. Where is that mapped? Where is it reported?

I know that Mr Quinn wants to come in, convener.

I am conscious that, rather than saying yes or no, Fiona Robertson has said that she is not sure whether it will be comparable. You have said that you might continue with the same method for the following academic year but that you might not, and that you would quite like to go back to some of the old ways of working. Much of the system is in flux at the moment, but stability would be really good for young people and schools. I am a wee bit disappointed that we do not have more clarity from the SQA in relation to this.

I want to check one thing. When the fourth school comes online in 2024—on schedule, I hope—will that meet the current demand retrospectively? I get the point that, when 2024 comes along, the demand may be greater again, so the local authority will always be playing catch-up on infrastructure in relation to demand. Will the current demand be met in 2024?

The deputy convener asked about staffing and recruitment, and Jim Whannel talked about demand outstripping supply, not just with staffing but with infrastructure. As a Glasgow MSP, I was interested to hear that there were 180 requests for primary school placements but that only 140 places were available. I know that Glasgow City Council has a draft Gaelic language plan out for consultation at the moment and that a fourth primary school will come online in 2024. What relationship does the bòrd have with the 32 local authorities in relation to their forward planning to ensure that there is sufficient staffing and infrastructure? As a constituency MSP, every year, I get requests for letters of support for appeals in relation to placement requests, particularly for Gaelic-medium primary school education. As a Glasgow MSP, I would find it helpful to hear any comments that you have on that relationship with the local authorities and on the support, the communication and the quality of the forward planning of each local authority to meet that demand and interest.

Okay. That helps.

Any other comments on that would be welcome, but I have one final thing that I want to ask about. Another aspect of regionalisation was that we wanted to make sure that, in colleges with a number of campuses, there is community outreach work to attract learners who would not normally go to college. I am not talking about learners who are at school, but those in the wider community who have not had a conventional learning pathway—that would be the jargon, I suppose. Hard-to-reach groups would be the other jargon. What work is going on, and has that been enhanced in any way by college regionalisation? How do we reach those students who would not normally get into learning? That is, of course, what the further education sector is there for as well. Any comments on that would be welcome.

It has been interesting to hear about the varied experiences across the country. One of the aims of regionalisation was to make it easier and more straightforward for young people not only to move from school into the college sector, whether to do higher national diplomas, higher national certificates or foundation apprenticeships, but also to articulate from colleges into universities—to move straight into second year at university. Has it been students’ experience that things have improved in recent years in relation to both of those things? Is there an equality of status for those who are at college and doing an HND because that is what they need? There is not a self-fulfilling prophesy that they have to go to university; they go for the HND or the apprenticeship. Any comments on the equality of status across various courses would be very welcome.