Seòmar agus comataidhean

From what I have seen, I think that it is difficult to say, because, as Mr Rennie knows, the level of input in his constituency might be different from the level of input in other parts of the country. One of the things that I, as education secretary, grapple with is the variance across the system, school by school and local authority by local authority. It is difficult to give a monolithic answer such as, “Yes, it’s not good enough and we need to improve it.” I broadly support that view, but we need to get into some of the detail, too. For example, some schools might have excellent speech and language provision, while in others that provision might have been reduced. The Government needs to reflect on that. If a local authority has made that decision, we need to ask where the support for children and young people will be provided.

The committee will recall that, last year, we published data on speech and language delays among our youngest children—those aged zero to 2—and among our poorest citizens from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds. I have been struck by the fact that, following the pandemic, there are real challenges with those young people coming back into formal education as they progress from early learning and childcare to primary school.

Mr Rennie has touched on a really important point. We have invested in Education Scotland specifically in relation to speech and language, and we now have a team at national level going out to provide the support that he talked about. However, that team has only so many members.

We need to upskill and support the profession, but we also need to recognise the role of local government, which brings us back to Mr Kerr’s point. This cannot be a Government-only endeavour. For example, I want COSLA to be involved in building the new centre of teaching excellence, because I want it to have buy-in. The centre could provide an offer not just to the profession, but to our young people with additional support needs.

I think that was a partnership process.

In my experience, that is not really the role of Government, so what I have said here today is not a change in policy. I have listened to the evidence that the committee has taken about educational support needs, and I think that we should reflect that better in our practice. That might mean working with the Scottish Futures Trust to provide clearer guidance on the issue in the future.

I have named a number of large schools, including some in Mr Rennie’s constituency, one of which I attended. We should be careful about how large schools meet the needs of a cohort of young people who are different from other children, need different support and can therefore often get lost in the mainstream. We know that. How does that work in a much larger school, particularly when some of those young people have come from very small schools in rural areas?

It is worth putting on the record that the Government has supported local authorities to improve the quality of the school estate quite substantially since 2007. Just over 60 per cent of schools were in good or satisfactory condition in 2007. Today, the figure is just over 90 per cent, and that is because—

That is set out in the code of practice, but I should say that we have sought to update that. That update will be coming, and it might help to provide further clarity. I think that the point that you are making, convener, is that, in the range of ways in which schools and local authorities respond to additional support needs, they often repurpose classrooms and might, therefore, seek to update the contents of the classroom to meet the needs of their children and young people. Through the updated code of practice, there is perhaps an opportunity for us to specify—more so—what that should look like. However, that is already in the code of practice.

I think that we could look at that in the code of practice. Of course, it depends on the school building that the member of staff is working in, but I think that we could specify that in the updated code of practice. There is room for us to do that.

We have the role of the lead teacher, which was created back in 2021 and which the committee may have taken evidence on. That role gives opportunities for staff to specialise but stay within mainstream provision. For example, there is an opportunity to do that with additional support needs. The General Teaching Council for Scotland has undertaken further work on accreditation in relation to additional support needs, so there are opportunities for staff to specialise in that regard, too.

More generally, as I tried to rehearse in my response to the convener, certainly in secondary schools, there used to be a staffing structure that looked to support things such as behaviour. That does not exist in the same way any more. To go back to Mr Kerr’s point, there is a more general approach that looks at pupil support in the round. However, if staff want to specialise, they should be able to do so, and the lead teacher role allows them to do that.

That role has not been as popular as we hoped it would be, and I am pretty pragmatic about that. There are a number of challenges post-Covid that mean that staff might not be interested in the role or in specialising, but I am keen to work with the teaching unions on how we can encourage the use of the lead teacher role, because that is an opportunity.

I accept that we have a leadership role, which is why we ring fence funding for teacher numbers and pupil support assistants. However, the question is specifically about specialism. In accepting responsibility, short of my directing local authorities, which I do not want to do, I am trying to see a resolution.

If young people are in school, it improves outcomes for them, which is important. We need to be mindful of the role of school. Visibly being present in school is an important factor, but there are some young people for whom attending school can be extraordinarily stressful, and there are a range of ways in which we can support that.

There has been a move to a level of online provision. For some young people, particularly harder-to-reach young people, that might work. I gave the example of the virtual headteachers network engaging with care-experienced young people to try to ensure that they are engaging with school education and attending school. Post-pandemic, that mixed-model approach is used—for example, by e-Sgoil, through the qualifications that it is able to deliver. Quite often in that delivery model, and certainly through NeLO, young people might be in school and experiencing digital learning, which I think would be the preference.

For some young people, coming into school is still extraordinarily challenging, but I have been in schools, including primary schools, where headteachers have used members of staff—perhaps a pupil support assistant or others in their school community—to engage directly with a young person and their family. Over a number of weeks and sometimes months, they have been able to encourage that person back into school. That is always to the benefit of the young person.

The member makes an interesting point. The difference between the two plans is important, because far greater need may be associated with the statutory plans than with those that are non-statutory. The challenge is how we can measure that difference and still give parents and young people the opportunity to have an individual plan. I do not know whether we have considered the issue in the past, as the 2021 review predates my time as cabinet secretary.

Pam Duncan-Glancy has made a number of points about workload and class sizes. If members want me to talk through all those things, I could be here until 12 o’clock.

Let us not pretend that every teacher in Scotland teaches a class of 33. That is absolutely not the case. If a teacher teaches a practical subject, for example, their class size will be capped at 20, I think. There are a variety of class sizes across Scotland.

I have been working with the teaching unions on workload because I recognise the challenge in that regard. However, workload is a monolithic term that we have to get into and understand. What are we referring to when we talk about workload? Incidentally, workload in Fife will look different from workload in Dundee, because local authorities ask teachers to do different things. Let us be pragmatic when we talk generically about things such as workload. I know that the teaching unions like to talk about those things but, to make a difference, we really need to understand what we mean.

One of the things that we removed from the workload was the outcome and assessment standards around qualifications. I think that Mr Swinney did that some years ago. We are now looking at reintroducing a level of continuous assessment, and I know that the teaching unions are supportive of that. The workload associated with that in respect of the new qualifications will need to be carefully judged, particularly for secondary teachers.

I will segue to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s substantive point, which was about mental health. We have a positive story to tell in relation to the counselling support that we have been able to provide in every secondary school in Scotland. That support, which used not to exist, is now embedded. That is important. It is not teachers who are delivering that support. We can learn from that model.

To go back to the original question, how do we embed substantive specialist provision where that is needed? I accept that it is needed, and I look forward to working with COSLA on that. To go back to Mr Kerr’s point, this is about having a joint approach because I, as the cabinet secretary, cannot direct COSLA. However, we need to take leadership at the national level. My setting out expectations of the use of specialists is helpful in giving some of that direction, but we can get change at the local level by working with COSLA, whether that is on behaviour, attendance or supporting additional support needs.