Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is not a question so much as an observation. I totally get Michael Marra’s point about the representations that we receive as members, although we might disagree about the extent to which responsibility for additional support for learning lies with local authorities as opposed to the Scottish Government through additional funding.

What form would the committee’s work take if we considered the issue? Given our workload, I do not envisage an inquiry into it, so I am not clear how we would take it forward. That is not to say that we should not, but we need at least to have an idea of what form our interest would take before we come to a decision as to what to do.

The committee’s inquiry is looking at how effectively funding streams that are specifically aimed at improving attainment are being deployed, but I want to explore the potential impact of one or two other Scottish Government initiatives. Ruth Binks talked about the groundwork having been done, and I want to look at the impact of physical infrastructure. We are now in a position in which 91.6 per cent of pupils are being educated in settings that are deemed to be in good or even better condition. That has come about because of joint work since 2007 by the Scottish Government and councils to refurbish and rebuild schools. To what extent has that created a foundation to help us to tackle the attainment challenge?

Before the meeting, I was looking for examples of schools that have flourished, and I was struck by a couple in particular. Following a refurbishment, Kilmacolm primary school in Inverclyde won an award for raising attainment in literacy. We have also seen some quite remarkable figures at Eastwood high school in Glasgow, where the percentage of pupils getting five or more highers has increased from 17 per cent to 40 per cent.

I want to explore the extent to which refurbishing school infrastructure, including buildings, will help us to move forward with the challenge that we face. I will start with Ruth Binks, because I namechecked her.

In my neck of the woods, community campuses have been developed. The school building does not just open Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, and then shut; its leisure facilities and so on are available to the community. That model must surely assist communities to develop.

To be clear, I was not in any way suggesting that refurbished facilities are the most important thing as opposed to the ethos of the school and the quality of the teaching—far from it. I see them as being complementary to the work that is being done.

I ask Mark Ratter to comment, because I think that there was remarkable improvement at Barrhead high school on the back of a refurb.

With respect, you suggest that we fundamentally accept that this is an issue of national Government funding, and I am not sure that I entirely agree with that.

My other question is directed to Greg Dempster and Jim Thewliss. The EIS survey report mentions some instances where it was felt that PEF had been used—contrary to the guidance—to plug gaps that had arisen from cuts to more general budgets. Is that still being seen?

I came across an example where a local authority was halfway through a training programme for the entire teaching staff in its employment when PEF came along. It was suggested to the headteachers in the remaining schools that had not yet had the course that they could use PEF to pay for it, in order to avoid the local authority having to meet the cost. Are such things still going on or is the approach settling down?

In fairness, as I name-checked Andrea Bradley and Mike Corbett, I should give them the chance to comment.

The premise of PEF, as I recall it, was to empower headteachers and their staff because they are the best-placed individuals and groups to understand the needs of the school. I was therefore a bit concerned by Andrea Bradley’s comments about teachers being left out of the decision-making process, but Mike Corbett’s comments perhaps cleared that up. He said that there are some good examples of teaching staff being involved in the decision making and there are some examples of that not having happened. That has probably covered what I wanted to ask about at the outset, but I have a question about how PEF is deployed.

There have been a number of comments that have suggested that it is about who does what in a school and how they go about it, but some of the best examples of the use of PEF that I have come across have involved some more innovative things—for example, the appointment of truancy officers to visit families in a supportive way to understand better why children are not attending school. I have also seen secondary schools in clusters putting maths teachers into the primary schools because they have found that, on the maths front, the kids were not as well prepared as they should have been for going to secondary school.

Do you recognise that there is more to the use of PEF than simply the deployment of resources in individual schools? I direct that question to Greg Dempster in the first instance, and then Jim Thewliss.

My final question is on your interaction with the Scottish Housing Regulator, with whom you have a memorandum of understanding. How in practice do you share any insights into complaints about social landlords with the regulator? How does that work?