Seòmar agus comataidhean

Reaching young people who are disengaged is a challenge for everyone across Government, not just me in the education portfolio. Fundamentally, we need to think about how we engage the next generation in political structures. That is not just about education reform. You are going to get a speech from a former modern studies teacher now, Mr Mason, but our education system has a role to play in engaging young people in politics and decision making.

I hear your view about meeting young people who might be the—I am not sure whether I should repeat the way that you described them.

You are saying that the committee does not have a view on this, so I will await your deliberations. We need to be careful about how we specify that and what it might look like. I am not ruling that out. I have heard various views—there is not a uniform view on it. I will bring in Clare Hicks.

Yes, I know—they are.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Education (Scotland) Bill. I have watched with great interest the evidence that the committee has taken and I look forward to engaging with members and hearing their views throughout today’s meeting.

The bill represents a single but significant component of our on-going programme of education reform, building on the findings in the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and those in Professor Ken Muir’s review. It also provides the scaffolding on which other non-legislative reforms are being built and it will act as a catalyst for a range of changes that we need to see right across our education system.

The establishment of qualifications Scotland and His Majesty’s chief inspector of education is fundamentally about improving pupil outcomes and better supporting our teachers. National education bodies have been too distant from those whom they serve and are often perceived by teachers as being an impediment to delivering excellent teaching in the classroom.

As the committee knows, various reviews have also confirmed that, if trust in those bodies is to be restored, pupils and teachers must be put at the centre of decision making. The bill includes provisions that will support efforts to enable the organisations to build that trust, restore confidence and change their ways of working to more readily involve stakeholders and increase the transparency of decision making. The requirement under the bill for the board of qualifications Scotland to include practising teachers across school and college settings and a person with knowledge of the interests of those who undertake qualifications will provide greater diversity and challenge in the operation of the board.

The creation of the learner and teacher charters, which will be developed with users, will provide greater transparency and accountability. The statutory learner interest committee and teacher and practitioner interest committee will ensure that the views of a wide range of pupils, teachers and other people directly influence the organisation’s decision making.

For the inspectorate, the bill will enshrine in legislation the independence of inspection and reporting. It will move the balance of power from ministers to the chief inspector, which is a significant change. That will increase public confidence in the independence of inspection and, perhaps most important, ensure that the strengths and challenges that they identify directly drive improvement.

It is essential that the new inspectorate engages with the views of education stakeholders and partners. The bill will introduce strengthened governance arrangements, including the establishment of an advisory council, which will ensure that wider perspectives are brought to bear while maintaining the crucial independence of the chief inspector.

However, legislation alone will not create the level of change in practice and culture that is needed for qualifications Scotland and His Majesty’s inspectorate of education. In addition to our work on the bill, we are looking at how qualifications Scotland and HMIE will operate to ensure that they will work differently and be more responsive. For example, I have commissioned the Scottish Qualifications Authority to look at options for qualifications Scotland’s leadership structures and the establishment of a schools unit in the new body. That unit would support teachers to deliver excellent teaching, learning and assessment, ensuring the best outcomes for our children and young people.

Work is continuing at pace with regard to the new centre for teaching excellence and we are progressing the refocus of Education Scotland to lead on the curriculum improvement cycle and support curriculum design and delivery. That work is well under way, as the committee will be aware.

Our national bodies need to be high performing, accessible and transparent. They must garner the trust of the teachers and children and young people whom they are there to support. It is vital to achieve reform that is right for our system and that creates meaningful change in practice and culture. I believe that the bill, along with the range of non-legislative reforms that are already under way, will deliver that for the benefit of pupils and teachers alike.

I look forward to hearing from committee members.

I agree with that.

I have been listening to the committee’s evidence on that with great interest. As Mr Adam will be well aware, some of the challenge in relation to the SQA and how it is perceived by teachers, parents and pupils dates way back to before the pandemic. In the previous parliamentary session, I sat on the other side of the committee table with some members who are still on the committee, and we debated a range of these issues. What happened during the pandemic undoubtedly crystallised the need for significant change, and I think that the way in which we are approaching that is really important.

It cannot be seen as a rebranding; it has to feel different. Over a number of years, teachers have been frustrated by some of their engagement with the SQA, and that situation has to get better. I have been really taken by the evidence that the committee has heard from School Leaders Scotland and the Educational Institute of Scotland that things have improved in the past year and that engagement is already looking and feeling different. That is part of the story. The bill crystallises the need for change.

It is important to set out that, fundamentally, we still need a qualifications body to deliver the exam diet. If you consider Professor Louise Hayward’s recommendations, you will see that at no point did she suggest that we get rid of all final examinations, although she did suggest that for national 5s. She looked at rationalising the delivery of qualifications and, in particular, at having an approach in Scotland that really looks at high-stakes final examinations. As I said, we still need a body that will deliver our qualifications system, but that body must look different and it must interact with people differently. To my mind, that is where a lot of the sense of frustration has come from.

The final point that I will make in response to your question is about rebuilding trust. The pandemic undoubtedly had an impact in eroding that trust. As the committee knows, particularly through the evidence sessions, I have been pretty pragmatic about that. I am of the view that having the new qualifications body is an imperative and that I cannot deliver on some of the aspirations in relation to Professor Hayward’s recommendations without the SQA really changing and becoming a new front-footed organisation that has the views of teachers, pupils and parents at its heart.

Michelle Thomson touches on an important issue. If the committee wishes, I can rehearse all the statistics that I have at my fingertips on Government investment in education, but the substantive point that the member makes is this: given that there is additionality in relation to spend per pupil and pupil support assistants, data on which was published yesterday, why is the need so great?

Part of the issue relates to the fact that, in 2010, as the committee knows, we changed the way in which we measure additional support needs, which has led to some increase in the numbers. However, other external factors are driving an increase in the number of additional support needs pupils. For example, I think that just over 5 per cent of the figure is accounted for by pupils who have English as an additional language, and there are wider factors around the increase, which the committee might be aware of.

More generally—I might have made this point to the committee last year—I note that, as one headteacher put it to me, during the pandemic, when other services stepped back, schools stepped up. I think that schools are now filling a void that other services have historically filled. That adds to the growing feeling that the system is under an inordinate amount of pressure. In the past—even 10 or 15 years ago—schools were very focused on providing education. I know that members are aware of this, because they spend a lot of time visiting schools in their constituencies, but schools now provide services that they did not provide five or 10 years ago. Part of the pressure that the system faces comes from that broader approach to the role of school education, with some schools providing community support that they did not provide in the past.

There are a range of things that the Government can do in. To some extent, my answer goes back to Mr Kerr’s point about whether responsibility sits at a local or national level. One of the things that the Government can do is ring fence. The committee might want to push me on this point, but I think that, in recent times, the Government has taken a principled stance on ring fencing teacher numbers and teacher funding. Because of the additional £145 million that has been invested, there has been, as the statistics published yesterday show, an increase in pupil support assistants—the additionality is for those, too.

There are actions that the Government can take centrally to protect funding for certain areas. Others might disagree with that approach, but I think that it is important in protecting inputs—and, indeed, outputs, because we know that, if we have more staff in the system, we help to improve outcomes for our children and young people.

More broadly, as I alluded to in my opening commentary, the additional support for learning action plan tells a good story of the progress that we have made. Laura Meikle might want to talk about some of the specifics around that. We are not where we should be, partly because of the pandemic, but it is important to recognise that we have been able to make key progress in a number of different areas.

I will touch on a final point. We have mentioned education reform. The committee will know that, in the coming weeks and months, I will be bringing forward legislation on a range of new bodies that will replace the current examinations body and Education Scotland, and that the inspectorate function will come out of that. I invite members to consider the role of those bodies in supporting young people with additional support needs. I know that the committee has taken evidence on the support that is currently available from Education Scotland. My question is this: in the new and challenging post-pandemic education world that we are all living in, could that support be better provided? There is an opportunity for the proposed centre for teaching excellence to deliver some of that support.

I will bring in Laura Meikle to talk about some of the specifics of the ASL action plan.

Indeed it does.

No parent or carer should have to fight for the rights that their children are entitled to under the 2004 act—they should have that support. That is my starting point. After all, as well as being the education secretary, I am a constituency MSP. I am sure that you all receive constituency correspondence on such issues, as I do in my local capacity.

At a national level, I will reflect on the evidence that the committee has taken on the role of the tribunal. The tribunal should be the backstop; it is the last place where we want parents to end up. They should not have to go there, because a number of other remedies are open to them to consider with regard to resolving challenges with their local authority over support for their child. For a start, they can make a complaint to the local authority, and there are also the options of mediation and independent adjudication.

A number of interventions can be taken before the tribunal stage, and, through the ASL action plan, there is an opportunity for us to be clearer about them to ensure that parents know about them and their rights and that they should not have to escalate their case to the tribunal. We might come back to that issue, but the action plan will improve everyone’s understanding.

I should also say that there is the opportunity, under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, for parents and carers to escalate their case to me. That happens very rarely, but that option is open to them. The point is that we do not want parents to have to go through the tribunal process, because it is extraordinarily stressful and is not good for the young person. It would be much better if we could resolve the issues at local authority level.

I will continue to work with COSLA on the matter. When I meet it today as part of the SAGRABIS work, we will undoubtedly touch on the ASL action plan.