Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. Laura Meikle might want to speak about that.

I might bring in Laura Meikle to talk about some of the opportunities. More broadly, Mr Kidd asks whether I can direct how local authorities build their schools. That would create a bit of tension, so, as with most things that we do in education, a partnership with COSLA would probably be best.

The evidence that the committee has heard on the issue is really important. School buildings, and the design of learning places, can impact on attainment, particularly for children with additional support needs. Buildings can be much more challenging for them, so where they learn is important.

I will bring in Laura Meikle to talk about the code of practice.

I do not know the specifics of that example, but I am happy to look at that if the trade union representative is able to share the details with me. Suffice it to say that no child should be being educated in a cupboard.

With regard to the code of practice, there is specific guidance on the suitability of school buildings.

No, that is not the Government’s policy. It is worth saying that the statistics that were published yesterday show a slight increase in the number of teachers who have ASN as their main subject.

A common theme of all my evidence to the committee today will be that we need to be mindful of the fact that local authorities, not the Government, employ our teachers. I put the challenge back to the member. Should it be for the Government to ring fence the funding, whether it be for teachers or classroom assistants? Should it be for the Government to direct local authorities and say that that is where they should invest the additionality from the Scottish Government? Local authorities are choosing to use that additionality right now to employ record numbers of pupil support assistants. That is making a difference, but it does not take away from the role of specialist teachers. I hope that the member understands that there is a challenge because I do not employ our teachers.

In her response to Ross Greer, Clair Henderson covered the ask on training and the Bute house commitment to accreditation and support for pupil support assistants, which I accept. We need to support training far better than we do currently. I think that it is fair to say that there is a disparate approach across the country, and there are ways in which we are going to support the training through that commitment. I am keen to give an update to the committee. It should have been given before the end of last year, of course, but officials have been rather busy with a few other things, so we want to bring forward that important work.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point about additional support needs teachers, can we just remember that, because of the act, the impetus since 2004 has been on all teachers to provide a level of additional support? All teachers in Scotland should be providing, and do provide, additional support to their pupils. They do that every day.

There is still a role for specialists, but let us remember that the ring fencing is not just about protecting pupil support assistants and increasing their numbers. Local authorities have also chosen, in some instances, to use that additionality to employ specialist teachers. That is a decision that they have at their disposal.

I suppose that the challenge that Ms Duncan-Glancy puts to me is this: is it for the Government to direct local authorities in how many specialist teachers they employ in their schools? Is it for the Government to ring fence that?

More generally—I know that the committee has taken evidence on this—we have seen a real uptick in dysregulated behaviour. I spoke about the challenge with some of our youngest citizens, such as speech and language delays. In the behaviour in Scottish schools research that was published in November, we saw some really challenging behaviour in some of our youngest citizens. In primary 4, which is age eight, there were real challenges with behaviour and relationships that we would not have seen before the pandemic.

I do not think that we can say that Covid has not made a difference. It has compounded the challenge that existed in the system prior to lockdown—there was challenge previously—but we also see gaps in our children’s learning. When we talk about comparing exam results from the past four years with exams that were taken before the pandemic, we need to be careful. We all need to accept that there are big gaps in our children’s learning, because they were not in school for extended periods.

How the system responds to the need to support our young people is important. Prior to my time in this role, the previous cabinet secretary worked with the Scottish Qualifications Authority to provide a package of support to children and young people before the previous examination round. We have looked at a number of ways in which we can support people online, and I think that the committee might have taken evidence on that. E-Sgoil has been very important in that respect, in providing digital opportunities. We also have the national e-learning offer—NeLO—via Education Scotland, which is very strong.

The final point that I want to touch on is the work that we have done through the SAC programme with virtual headteachers, who, in a number of parts of Scotland, are working with our care-experienced young people to support their learning and their attendance. We know that there are real anxieties in the system, and sometimes virtual headteachers have a reach that traditional classroom-based or school-based headteachers might not have.

We are looking at different ways of working to enhance and protect the outcomes for the young people who, during the pandemic, became disengaged from their learning.

I have previously touched on evidence—I think it was at the committee, but certainly in Parliament—that was published down south in January by the Centre for Social Justice, which looked at the frayed link between school and families during the pandemic and how that is having a compounding effect on attendance. Again, I hope that we will go back to this issue, because we have real challenges with attendance. I encourage the committee to look at the local-level data and the variance across the system. We have a local authority in Scotland where 50 per cent of young people in secondary school are persistently not attending school, which means that they are missing 10 per cent of their school year. That is a significant amount of learning. We cannot hope to respond to challenges relating to behaviour, attainment or attendance if our young people are not in front of us.

All the post-pandemic issues that Mr Kidd speaks to are intrinsically linked. Obviously, we might now hear Mr Kidd’s views on whether what is being done is working. I do not think that there is a magic wand that we can wave, but we are looking at new ways of working, and the virtual headteacher programme is a good example of that.

We have always had a cohort of school refusers. That is not a new feature of Scottish education; it exists in most education systems. Fundamentally, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 sets out the expectation that children and young people should be in school. It is a legal requirement that they go to school, and we should be mindful of that.

There are ways in which local authorities can support young people. To go back to Mr Kidd’s question, we can use virtual headteachers and online approaches. There are outreach mechanisms—some schools use their pupil equity funding to employ people to go to young people’s doors to encourage them to attend school, which can help with the problem. There is a range of mechanisms that schools have always used to engage young people in their education. I do not see that as a new feature post-pandemic. The real difference is the move to digital as an option. However, it should not be the first preference; attending school is the first preference.

If there are areas that the committee thinks are missing from the action plan, I would be happy to read about that in the committee’s final report. We are progressing our update on the actions, which will be published in the next few weeks, but we have an opportunity to ensure that the action plan is actually driving the change that Ms Maguire has spoken about.

On Ms Maguire’s substantive point, the landscape is quite cluttered as far as the support available to parents is concerned, and one of the actions in the action plan is to simplify that. After all, there is a range of support available—there is the let’s talk ASN service, the support for children and young people, the Enquire service and so on—and we need to pull all of that together and signpost parents to ensure that they get the support that they need and to prevent escalation, which in turn brings us back to the point about the tribunal service. Right now, parents and young people can receive support in a variety of ways, and the situation is not always clear.

I think that we are open to revising the specifics in that regard. I know that Laura Meikle wants to come in on this point, but I think that we reviewed access to CSPs in 2021 on the back of the Morgan review.