Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is really whether we are getting the priority right. It is about whether a lot of the money that is going to schools for equity is ending up being used to plug staffing shortages or for other things that are very education focused. I recognise that there is a gap there, but I wonder whether involving the third sector and others who have better expertise in addressing poverty would give us the full chance to use the money as best we can.

I asked that question because, yesterday, we saw a shift in focus away from using the Scottish index of multiple deprivation and towards looking at low-income families. I have been lobbying the Government on the issue for a long time and asking what is being done about hidden rural poverty. However, at no point did I think that that support would come at the expense of our most deprived communities.

A concentration of poverty presents certain challenges, and, as you have identified, people in rural poverty face social isolation and very different challenges. Both challenges must be met. Do you think that looking at low-income families is the right measure for determining how funding is allocated, or do you think that we still need the Scottish index of multiple deprivation? I have always thought that a hybrid system would meet both challenges.

Thank you. That is helpful.

I want to ask about rurality and poverty. Have those who are living and learning in rural communities been well served during the pandemic? There have been lots of cases of people struggling to access digital learning. In the relatively urban areas of my constituency, people worked together and there was lots of community support. However, lots of people living in very remote communities struggled to access such support. Is that something that you have picked up on?

I want to go back to Willie Rennie’s first line of questioning. I listened to Jim Wallace from Aberlour on the radio the other morning. I do not want to misquote him but, in effect, he said that there should be more of a role for the third sector. I am enthusiastic about having more teachers and support staff in schools, but the question is whether money that is designated for tackling poverty should be used just to bring in more teachers. Given the accountability structures, local authorities have quite a big say in how that money is spent and, in some cases, they are directing headteachers. Is that the right approach? Are we accessing the right expertise? Is there really partnership working, or could the money be distributed differently?

That would be helpful.

I will push you a little bit on that. Do you think that it is wrong to move away from the Scottish index of multiple deprivation when it comes to allocating the attainment funding? Is that a mistake?

Is the better model.

That was Professor Paterson’s point, and it was also highlighted by the Scottish commission on school reform, which has said:

“scrapping examinations and relying purely on teacher judgment would create a series of perverse outcomes including:

• Unintentional bias for or against certain social or demographic groups (for example against children from deprived backgrounds ... )

• Pressure put on teachers to award the grades required for university entrance, particularly in private schools and in the most affluent state school catchment areas

• Grade inflation caused by teachers wanting their children to succeed”.

You make a case against exams, but you have not touched on any of those issues.

Many people in Scotland will look at the suggestion that we should become more like the US, which is probably regarded as one of the most unequal countries in the world when it comes to access to education, and think that that would be a serious departure from the Scottish education tradition. In that tradition, the aspiration at least is that every young person will leave school with a meaningful qualification. Getting rid of that seems distinctly un-Scottish. I do not see how you feel that we can achieve equality of opportunity by removing the chance to sit exams for some young people but not others. Should we not be asking why some young people are leaving school without qualifications rather than lowering the bar for a group of young people who are consistently failed? Is that not a valid point?