Seòmar agus comataidhean

What does Margaret Wilson think?

I will finish there, convener.

Should we not be moving to scenario 2 already? There has been significant disruption to education caused not only by the staff absences that you have talked about but by pupil absences. A lot of pupils are on study leave and are sitting prelim exams now. If we do not know what the revision support advice will be, how can we prepare pupils for those exams? Should we not be moving to scenario 2 now, so that we can crack on with that?

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is a pretty clear message. You are smiling, which indicates that we should be moving towards scenario 2 so that we can crack on with that.

That is helpful. We are talking about a third of all pupils now being in this category, and the mainstreaming approach is quite a radical change. I get constant complaints from teachers, pupils and parents that there is just not adequate support. You say that there has never been a time when it has been adequate. Has it got worse or better?

Thanks for explaining the process, but I will explain what I really want to understand. I hear from a lot of frustrated parents, teachers and pupils who feel that their needs are not being met. That affects not only the pupils with additional needs but everybody else in the class. I am keen to understand whether the situation has got better from your perspective. If not, what are you saying to Government about changing it? What are you saying to your councillors in your respective authorities about priorities? If it is not getting any better, or if, as Mr Dempster has highlighted, it is getting worse, what are we doing about it?

Scenario 2 of the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s plan indicates that

“revision support, for example guidance on topics, will be provided to help learners maximise their exam performance and reduce exam stress.”

Do we know yet what the content of the revision support will be? I ask that Greg Dempster and then Douglas Hutchison answer that.

I might have to, because it is clear that the cabinet secretary will not make any efforts to argue for more funding for core school budgets. It is your job to stand up for education, but you are not making that case. Why on earth are you sitting here today complacently accepting the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy is, in effect, cutting £100 million from your core budget? That is undermining the work that you are doing. Why are you not making that case?

I am quite surprised by the cabinet secretary’s evidence. I do not think that she has given any acknowledgement to the fact that core school budgets will be cut by £100 million in this year’s settlement. Why is she not spitting mad about that? Surely, it is her responsibility to stand up for school budgets.

It is quite simple. The real-terms cut to councils is £268 million. Education is about half of what councils do, so I am being quite cautious in saying that the cut is around £100 million. There is no reference to or acknowledgement of that. Why are you not spitting mad about that? Surely, you should not be defending that cut to the core school budget; you should be arguing for an increase to it.

We heard from Michael Marra, who made some pretty clear points about the challenges—which you acknowledged—that pupils and teachers are facing in schools, yet you have imposed a cut of £100 million to their budget.