Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is the member talking about young people who are aged 15 who are not able to access a subject of their choice in school, for example?

I accept that the progress is not where it should be, and that the context needs to be understood.

I am not going to have you put words in my mouth, convener.

Yes, the programme for government that was written in advance of a global pandemic. I think that you need to reflect that the context has changed, and that is my position. That was actually the committee’s position, back in 2022, when Ms Webber was convener.

We have made progress, but we need to continue the progress that is required. I do not think that there is an MSP in the room who does not support our ambition to close the poverty-related attainment gap.

Yes, but external factors have undoubtedly had an impact on the progress that we have been driving. That does not mean that we should move away from that target and aspiration.

We have been able to drive progress. I am sure that the committee is well acquainted with the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data that was published in December last year, which showed record improvement in literacy in our primary schools, and showed that the attainment gap has reached record lows between secondary pupils achieving third level in both literacy and numeracy. Levels of literacy and numeracy across primary and secondary schools are at a record high.

I am pleased that the poverty-related gap in outcomes has reduced under this Government since 2009-10 by two thirds—or 67 per cent—for people leaving school and going on to a positive initial destination. That is important, because I was in a school in 2009-10, and young people often left school without qualifications and without a positive destination.

We have completely changed how schools support our young people through a qualifications framework and a targeted focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. To put it bluntly, historically many of those young people might have left school without qualifications. That was not acceptable to the Government, and I do not think that it would be acceptable to any political party.

I am sure that you can attribute that, convener.

Are there specific points of blame that you would like to address with me?

At that point, some learning was reflected in the approach that we took. I accept the convener’s point—of course the Government needs to learn lessons on what has worked and what has not. In my initial contribution, I highlighted the PEF sampling work, which has been really important. I was hoping to share with you today some of the detail on that, but I will write to the committee with more detail in due course.

I see a note from Ms Taylor—

I am not going to announce today a review of how we measure positive destinations, but I take the member’s point. SDS carries out the tracking for us in that regard. We track the longer-term trajectory of young people when they leave school, at intervals of three months and then nine months.

It might interest Mr Briggs to look at the data set from three months out then nine months out. There is a disconnect—we accept that. Beyond school, there are things that can be undertaken by Government, but other agencies are often involved in the delivery of support to a young person in that period of their life.

We also introduced the annual participation measure as part of the national improvement framework. That gives us a greater ability to measure the number of 16 to 19-year-olds who are in school, or perhaps at college or university, and gives us a truer picture of their progress across time.

There has been a slight increase, of 0.8 per cent, in participation between 2023 and 2024 for those in quintile 1—that is, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. In 2024, there was an 8.2 per cent gap in participation by 16 to 19-year-olds living in the 20 per cent most deprived and 20 per cent least deprived areas; that is the narrowest gap on record.

I take the member’s point, and it might be that some of his suggestions in relation to positive destinations are looked at in the round as part of the education reform that is more in Mr Dey’s space. Nevertheless, I will take that away from today’s meeting, convener. The member raises an important point, which has been rehearsed in the chamber previously.

Nonetheless, I go back, in the round, to my original response to Mr Rennie—which I know that he does not like—that 95.7 per cent of our young people are now in a positive destination. That is to be welcomed and celebrated. These young people were being let down by the education system before we started giving them that extra support, tracking, advice and encouragement. I think that we have completely turned around the way in which we support some young people.

To reiterate David Gregory’s point, not so long ago, in terms of tracking, it was university or nothing after school—there was maybe a job, or college, but there was often a gap. We have become far better at tracking that progress across time. We can undoubtedly improve—I accept that. I think that that is the point that the member makes.

However, I go back to the comments from Gillian Campbell-Thow, the headteacher who was on the radio with Mr Briggs. I confess that a colleague tipped me off to that interview: I do not routinely sit listening to the radio waiting for Mr Briggs to come on. Gillian Campbell-Thow said in response to Mr Briggs last week that

“We need to look at the currency of these qualifications before we start saying that you’ll be doing a disservice to children in having 15 per cent of all school leavers leave without anything.”

Her point was really about looking at the totality of achievements.

I think—I have reflected on this with officials—that some of our measurements are not showing the totality of the picture of the achievements of all our young people.