Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the invitation to discuss the Scottish attainment challenge this morning.

The committee’s 2022 inquiry into the Scottish attainment challenge and its subsequent report have informed much of our on-going work. My predecessor as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills provided an update on progress back in 2022, as did I when I attended the committee to discuss the issue in 2023. I will take this opportunity to update committee members and to flag my priorities for the future.

The mission of the attainment challenge is to use education to improve outcomes for children and young people who are impacted by poverty, with a focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. I am pleased that we are making progress. For example, last month, we saw in the data on initial leaver destinations for 2023-24 that the poverty-related attainment gap has been reduced by two thirds, or 67 per cent, since 2009-10. We have also recorded record low poverty-related attainment gaps in literacy in our primary schools and in both literacy and numeracy in our secondary schools. I am grateful to school staff for their excellent work in targeting support towards pupils who need it most.

We all want to increase the pace of progress across all ages and stages. The Government’s commitment to the Scottish attainment challenge has been unwavering, as has been demonstrated by our investment of up to £1 billion during this parliamentary session alone. The significance of that investment is not lost on me. That is why we have a comprehensive multiyear evaluation strategy in place, which the committee’s 2022 report looked at. Education Scotland gathers and shares a vast range of data and local information. Over the past year, Government officials and attainment advisers have visited 129 schools to sample pupil equity funding plans in order to see the impact of the programme.

We cannot ignore the lasting impact of the pandemic and the subsequent cost of living crisis. Within that context, it has been heartening to see schools using their pupil equity fund money and working so creatively to help to support their pupils and families. In schools such as Fair Isle primary school in Fife and Braes high school in Falkirk, PEF has been used to reduce the cost of the school day and to help families access the benefits that they are entitled to and to develop their literacy and numeracy skills, thereby reducing the invidious challenges that are associated with poverty.

However, I cannot ignore the impact of austerity on families who are experiencing poverty. It has increased the number of families living in poverty and presents barriers to young people’s educational experiences and attainment before they even arrive at the school gates. The Government recognises the pressures on household budgets. That is why, in 2025-26, we will continue to allocate more than £3 billion of funding to policies that will help to tackle poverty and the cost of living. However, it disappoints me that schools are having to fight that battle. Our headteachers are having to make choices about funding things like income-maximisation officers, as opposed to direct educational interventions.

Today, I wish to give some comfort to Scotland’s headteachers on the continuation of the Scottish attainment challenge. As I have stated in evidence to the committee previously, I am clear that the Scottish attainment challenge should continue. To that end, the funding will continue through 2026-27. I hope that that confirmation is helpful to local authorities and schools alike, who I know deeply value the central Government’s support for the sector. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that important work with the committee.

I will bring in officials to talk about the evaluation work that we have undertaken. Dave Gregory’s team has led a lot of good work on sharing good practice at the national level and on getting schools to work with one another on what has worked.

However, the PEF sampling work that David Leng and Alison Taylor have been involved in has also been heartening. I cannot speak for officials, but they can speak for themselves about the transformative impacts of the funding in our schools. We need to learn from the PEF sampling work, particularly when we look to evaluate the totality of the spend across the 10-year period. Dave Gregory and David Leng might want to say more on those points.

I have not had it yet.

I think that we did make progress in that time.

I think that it is. Some poverty has become more ingrained, particularly as a result of austerity. I am trying not to politicise the discussion, but we undoubtedly live in a state in which welfare is, to a large extent, provided by the UK Government, and there is sometimes a disconnect between its policy and ours in Scotland. That can harm some of our most vulnerable people and can mean that the poverty-related attainment gap has become more stubborn over time and harder to move.

Having a political focus on that has been good for our schools. When I was a teacher at the Royal high school in Edinburgh in 2011, I heard a presentation, which was probably given by the local authority, about the percentage of our young people who left school without any qualifications. Essentially, we told a cohort of young people who did not obtain 33.33 per cent in their prelim that they could not go on to sit the higher exam because it was not for them. We did not even allow them the opportunity to sit the exam for that qualification. Therefore, I do not underestimate the shift in mindset that has taken place in our schools to get us to a place where we are doing better at supporting young people to achieve.

However, the member is right: austerity and the grinding impact of poverty have become much more challenging to deal with. That is why we see local authorities such as Falkirk Council and Dundee City Council using the additionality of the PEF money to support people with paying their bills by employing income-maximisation officers. I do not think that anyone who was around when we launched that fund in 2016 would have countenanced that. I absolutely support headteachers’ decisions, but we need to think again about educational interventions and about the fact that schools are mopping up things that other services should be providing.

We made progress, but the context, as the committee reflected in its report in 2022, undoubtedly hampered some of that progress. I accept that, and the committee has accepted that as well.

Those are your words, convener, not mine. I would not necessarily accept that there are “deficiencies in the bill” as currently drafted.

That goes back to my response to Mr Rennie: when you look at the totality across time, there has been an improvement in relation to on-going positive destinations. With regard to the broader view, I do not know which years you are comparing. Can you clarify that?

Do you mean with regard to closing the gap?

May I ask a question? My apologies, convener—I realise that I am here to be questioned.