Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Brown is a former cabinet secretary in this Government, and he knows that the Government is a fan of targets. There are good reasons for having targets; it is important that we show the public that we are working to improve public services.

I go back to some of the thinking around closing the poverty-related attainment gap. There was broad support for the target at the time. It was a momentous shift in how we funded our schools to have funding from central Government that was protected. There is a challenge in that, because, to respond to Mr Brown’s question, this is about accountability. I am here, and I am accountable, ultimately, to the Parliament and to the committee, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is not here, and I cannot deliver on closing the poverty-related attainment gap if local authorities are not at the table.

That is why our change—from the nine challenge authorities to the strategic model—really tied local authorities in with regard to their stretch aims. We had to tie our funding to a requirement that local authorities were going to sign up to the stretch aims. It is fair to say that that was not without challenge across the piece. Officials had to work with local authorities to get them to agree to deliver in order to provide the accountability on the ground that Mr Brown’s point was about, which is what really makes the difference.

As education secretary, I am often reminded that I do not have much power, but we have a partnership approach to the delivery of education in Scotland, which empowers local authorities to run education departments. However, we also need them to deliver on the Government’s objectives, and that must be done in partnership. The stretch aims have been really helpful in unlocking some of the progress that has been made. I want to put on the record my thanks to Dave Gregory and his team. They have been working at the national level with 30 attainment advisers and working individually with local authorities to provide support, which has also been key.

There will always be debates about accountability in education, because there will always be a degree of friction between the aspirations of central Government, which is ultimately accountable, and the reality of delivery on the ground, which can sometimes detract from the policy ambition.

The alternative would be for the Government to sit still, which I am not sure is acceptable to Scotland’s parents, teachers and young people. We must reflect on the real urgency for reform of our qualifications body, which has been expressed by stakeholders and by the committee. The committee backed the general principles of the bill at stage 1, which is important.

Absolutely, convener.

I accept that we would have liked to have seen further progress, but in the context of the pandemic—

I do not think that we have an explicit measurement in relation to income groupings. I set out some progress in relation to positive destinations, and we have seen progress in our primary schools, but I would like faster progress—it needs to happen at pace. However, we cannot ignore the context that you highlight, Mr Kidd, with regard to the pandemic.

When we talk about the Scottish attainment challenge, we consider school education in Scotland quite narrowly. However, I draw members’ attention to the gaps that are already emerging among our youngest children. There are speech and language delays among zero to two-year-olds in some of our poorest communities. We track that data in terms of educational performance. We know that the outcomes for those young people, who were not necessarily exposed to health visitors during lockdown in the same way that they might have been otherwise, are being impacted as a result, so we need to think again about how we provide them with support to drive progress.

I am sorry—I see that Alison Taylor wants to come in.

I am somewhat confused by your line of questioning.

On the first point that you have put to me, I accept that the slight widening of levels 4, 5 and 6 in the most recent data set is a challenge. However, it is important to look at the totality of progress that has been made across the piece, which is the point that I made to Mr Rennie.

Some of the challenge is that the NIF measurement is not in the same place as the stretch aims, so it is not gathering the totality of qualifications. The point that was made to Mr Briggs on the radio last week was that, if we only look at the narrow data set, we will miss all the other qualifications that our young people are achieving. It is, therefore, more important that we move to a truer story about the totality of qualifications in the round. However, I accept that the figures for this year are not where they should be, and we need to reset and focus on progress. Today, you have heard about some of the actions that are being taken to that end.

If you look in the round at the broader qualifications set, which is not captured by the NIF, you will see a range of other qualifications. I am more than happy to share information on that, because it has been raised with me by School Leaders Scotland and the BOCSH group of headteachers. They pointed to the fact that the Government’s measurements are not telling an accurate story of the totality of our young people’s achievements. It causes me great concern that we are out of sync when gathering data to measure that progress. We cannot have the scenario that you have outlined, because it is not going to help young people with their educational progress.

As we have heard across the piece from my officials and from David Gregory from Education Scotland—who I see is leaning in—a number of the recommendations in the 2022 report were for local government. I observe that local government is not at the table today—that is within the committee’s gift—but we need local government to be part of the answer, which is why the education assurance board is important. Alison Taylor’s points about variance are also really key. There is variance across the country—it is not a flat picture in relation to the numbers that Ms Duncan-Glancy outlined. Some areas are better than others, even when extrapolating with regard to poverty, which causes me concern, so it is really important that there is targeted support.

Dave Gregory’s team is involved at the national level in the targeted support to authorities, particularly on the measurements that Ms Duncan-Glancy spoke about, so I will bring him in to talk about that.

I know that Mr Dey answered questions on that when he was in front of the committee last week. There is a pilot being undertaken in the north-east of Scotland, and we are working with Universities Scotland on what we can do at the national level. In my experience, it often relates to local agreements; some of the work that was undertaken in the north-east in particular related to a local agreement with the local authority.

The point that David Leng was making pertains to data sharing with the DWP. We have been pursuing that for a number of years, and we are hopeful that we can have that data arrangement in place so that we can better target the funding—that is exactly the point that David was making. I am mindful in particular of the expansion of free school meals and how that will interact with our data at the national level. We need to look at different measurements. We are already doing that through the measurement on children—