Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am interested in a couple of issues, particularly how the ethical questions that we talked about earlier marry up with what Willie Rennie said about exams, assessments and how we measure things in schools. Chris Ranson gave an example. It is one thing to be able to tell whether a pupil has used something such as ChatGPT to help them with something in an essay for which there is a right and a wrong answer—for example, the name of a historical figure or a date is either right or wrong—but, on much more subjective issues, it can be harder for staff to drill down and tell whether a pupil has used an AI system, even if they know the pupil well.

When we get into territory that is incredibly subjective, how can we produce advice on distinguishing between what a pupil has produced and what AI might have produced? There might be no factual right or wrong answer for you to be able to check the hallucination points that have been mentioned.

On the point about time, I am interested in the thoughts of Chris Ranson, as a teacher, and of Ollie Bray, given his experience in the classroom. Realistically, there will never be the capacity in the system for a teacher to do that one-on-one assessment with every pupil, but there probably is the capacity for pupils in group settings to, in essence, cross-examine one another while being observed by a teacher, and that might raise red flags if it is clear that a pupil does not have a comprehension of what they presented.

Is there a way to develop such a system in a group setting in order to address workload issues? We can all envisage a system in which there is limitless capacity and, therefore, staff can address all such issues directly, but that is not the system that we have, and it is not realistic to think that we will ever have it. Is there a role for cross-examination by pupils and students themselves?

I will start with Louise Hunter. I am interested to know how you would characterise the Scottish Government’s overall response to Who Cares? Scotland’s “Paving the Way” report. Do you feel that the Government really grasped what was being said?

Is there—

Thanks very much.

In the interests of time, I thank the minister for that update, which was useful.

I will return to what Mike Burns said about voicing an appropriate level of frustration to the group on data. That issue is of interest to members of the committee, and to Parliament as a whole, across a wide variety of areas. We produce a huge amount of data in the public sector, but that does not necessarily drive improvement in the way that we want it to or even give us an accurate reading of how the system is operating. Will you tell us a little bit more about what you mean when you talk about trying to streamline the data that is being produced to drive improvement? What is the working group’s process for doing that?

That is absolutely something that we can and will raise—I will certainly raise it—with the minister.

I just want to check something. In the meetings that you have had with the minister and with the First Minister, have they given you any indication that there will be a full response to the “Paving the Way” report coming on their part, or do they consider events since then to have somewhat superseded it?

Again, we can raise that, so it is really useful to put it on the record.

My question follows on quite neatly from Ben McPherson’s question about consultation, co-design and engagement. As you said, not everyone in the care community will want to engage at a national level on questions of policy and legislation, but we are looking for examples of good practice. Can we draw on the practice of any local authorities or other public bodies that are engaging within their sphere and remit and doing it well?