Seòmar agus comataidhean

I responded to Alexander Stewart’s members’ business debate yesterday evening—some members of the committee were there, although I do not think that Ms Duncan-Glancy was. In that debate, I gave an update on the Government’s response, which is—as I said in responding to a point about the Audit Scotland report—that I want to engage with the Auditor General on that. We need to provide a substantive response to that report, including on the recommendation that the member referred to.

The member spoke about ASN in relation to spend. More broadly—again, I put this on the record in the debate last night—we see an improving picture in relation to the attainment of children with an identified additional support need. We know that, historically, many of those young people were prevented from attaining in the ways that they should have done because of the way in which our school system was structured, which often excluded them from mainstream education.

We have an inclusive education system. There was some challenge to that last night from Conservative members with regard to the presumption of mainstreaming—Ms Duncan-Glancy will have her own views on that—but I think that that is the strength of our education system in Scotland. The national discussion on education, the results of which were published in 2023 in “All Learners in Scotland Matter—national discussion on education: final report”, welcomed that as being unique to the Scottish education system. However, the challenge is always about delivery, and that is another point that came out in the debate last night.

National policy and local implementation are parts of all that I do as education secretary, whether it be on teacher numbers, ASN or responding to mental health challenges. This week, I answered a parliamentary question on that, which the member might be interested in. I cannot recall which member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee asked the question—it night have been Mr Briggs—but the response lays out additional support for learning spend per local authority. I encourage you to interrogate that data, because spending per pupil varies across the country.

I can protect ASN spend at the national level, but there is a level of local political decision making on how the funding gets to those who need it most, which is cited as a challenge in the Audit Scotland report.

The other challenge is transparency, which is why I welcome the report. I would like greater transparency in spend. I can talk about the record £1 billion of investment that is going to ASN, but we need to track how that spend is getting to those who need it most.

I do not have my diary in front of me, but I know that I and my officials are scheduled to meet the Auditor General in the coming weeks. I am more than happy to write to the committee with a fulsome update on that point.

It is not about Education Scotland.

The Children’s Commissioner for England commissioned a really strong piece of work on that. I do not know whether committee members have seen the report, but it is a brilliant piece of work with very strong recommendations to Government.

I will be meeting our Children and Young People’s Commissioner with Ms Don-Innes tomorrow and we will raise the issue with her in our discussions. As the member will know, it is not an issue that she has been pursuing. I have been keen to engage with the Children’s Commissioner for England because I was so taken by her work on attendance. She links it directly to improving outcomes for children and young people, which is her job as children’s commissioner.

The stretch aims have been important to changing our funding model and getting local authorities to buy into the process. We have talked about the challenge and the friction between local and central Government on delivering on the ambition, and the stretch aims tied the funding to delivering improvements. As I mentioned in response to a question from Mr Rennie, if they were achieved, we would see the attainment gap narrow by 30 per cent by 2026, which would be welcome.

I am told that most local authorities are on track to achieve or exceed their stretch aims. Mr Gregory might want to say a bit more about the work of his team. However, I remember being in one of my first meetings when I was appointed as education secretary—Alison Taylor and David Gregory might remember this—and talking about the substantial work that they had to undertake with local authorities to get them to agree to the stretch aims, which was evidence of the partnership approach that we have to have in Scottish education. It has been a success.

I will allow David Gregory to talk about some of the work that his team does to provide support at the local level. We appreciate that this cannot just be a one-way street with local government. We have to give it that additionality and support.

We need to be a wee bit careful with the ACEL data, as I am sure that you will be Mr Rennie, because that data is predicated on teacher judgment and I do not think that any member around this table would question teachers’ judgment.

I do not want to interrupt you. We have already had an episode of that today and I am keen to avoid it.

I do not accept that, Mr Rennie. I go back to the point that I made in relation to the data being informed by teacher judgment. Prior to the Government introducing the ACEL data measurement, there was no way for us to track, nationally, the progress that was being made in our primary schools. The introduction of that measurement has been central to providing us with a data set and a measurement at the national level, so that we can track the progress about which Mr Rennie speaks. For example, in numeracy, a record 80.3 per cent of pupils in P1, P4 and P7 have reached expected levels, while S3 pupils reached a new high of 90.3 per cent. In literacy, achievement is also at a record high in both primary and secondary. I might bring in David Gregory, for an Education Scotland perspective on the rigour of the challenge. Mr Rennie and I could have a political debate about it, but let me pass to a member of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, who might be able to give his views.

It could change at stage 2; however, if we do not start the process now, we will have to lead an alternative appointments process, and I have been advised that that would be truncated, far less robust and more open to challenge.

Mr Adam makes a good point. The school that I alluded to in my opening remarks—Braes high school in Falkirk—was one of the first schools that I visited as cabinet secretary. I was really struck by what they are doing. They had a “Take what you want” trolley and provision for the school prom, which many schools have. Many headteachers in our schools are using PEF to provide food and clothing. I do not think that they should have to do that, but they are having to make those choices because needs are not being met by the welfare state elsewhere. The power of PEF and SAC in their totality has been eroded by the implications of other policies, which is harming the impact that those funds should be having. That said, PEF is making a real difference.

I spoke about a primary school in Kirkcaldy in my opening remarks, where the headteacher is doing a lot of good work with a group of pupils with additional support needs. The convener took part in a debate on that last night. She is using her PEF money to employ an extra teacher, who is working with small groups of young people with identified additional support needs to give them time out of class and the extra support that they need. Across the country, PEF is being used to employ about 3,000 extra people, of whom 1,000 are teachers. The fund is being used in a lot of creative ways. That was a welcome reflection in the committee’s report in 2022, but we need to be mindful of external factors, because they have undoubtedly diluted the power, strength and impact that the funding was intended to have when it was introduced.