Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, all. I want to return to and focus on an issue that has been touched on a couple of times. Professor Mannion mentioned evidence that shows that about 80 per cent of the outdoor education that young people in Scotland currently get is not residential—I think that he said that it averages out at about half an hour a week in total. I am interested in your thoughts on the value of outdoor residential education specifically, as opposed to outdoor education more generally.

Suggestions have been made, when the bill was proposed and in the consultation process, that a wider entitlement to outdoor education would be more appropriate than a specific entitlement to residential education. Obviously, the bill proposes residential education specifically, and I do not think that anyone round this table would dispute the value of that—you have all given a compelling case for it. However, I am interested in your thoughts on the argument about whether we should create that specific entitlement or take the wider approach of entitling young people to outdoor education in the round.

I think that it was you, Professor Mannion, who acknowledged that outdoor learning is expensive. The benefit to the children and young people involved is indisputable, but it is resource intensive. Is there a particular value for money argument for residential learning opportunities, as opposed to the wider approach of an entitlement to outdoor learning? I am specifically looking for the argument for residential learning being particularly valuable.

Thank you for your answers. That is all really useful.

I am interested in the feedback from Peter and Douglas on that as well. We have very much focused, quite rightly, on the impact on the learner—the young person. Are there implications for teachers’ workload if continuous assessment is added on to the current system as opposed to replacing nat 5?

I will follow up on exactly that point. Your recommendation is to replace the current model of a high-stakes, end-of-term, national 5 exam with a continuous assessment model. The Government has decided instead to add continuous assessment to the system as it currently exists. Do you have any concerns about that, or do you think that continuous assessment can work as an add-on to the exam system? Do we have to have one or the other, or can doing both in the same year work?

I have a final question. Professor Hayward, a few moments ago you used a helpful metaphor of the jigsaw that all these reviews add up together to make. If there was an origin point to this process, it would be the OECD review. This has been on-going for decades, but where we are now came from the OECD review. One of the very clear points that it made, which I think you have all mentioned at some point this morning, is that, for all intents and purposes, we do not really teach curriculum for excellence in the senior phase. We teach curriculum for excellence in broad general education, and then we teach to the test. Your recommendations were about bridging that gap and enabling us to deliver CFE as intended in the senior phase. Will what the Government has outlined so far address the specific point of concern from the OECD that there is poor articulation from BGE to the senior phase?

Thank you, and thank you for all your work leading up to this point.

Douglas, do you have anything to add on that?

Good morning. I will follow up on that theme. I will start with the learner and teacher interest committees. My understanding of the current proposed structure is that they will report to senior management. Is there not a stronger rationale for them to report directly to the board, given the experience that we have had with the learner panel at the SQA? In essence, the learner panel often bluntly provided feedback that SQA senior management did not want to hear, and the management made sure that that did not get any further. If the two committees were directly accountable to the board, there would be nothing stopping senior management from engaging with them and soliciting their opinions where required, but that would strengthen accountability and resolve the issue that we have seen with the current equivalent structures.

That is much appreciated.

The relevant sections of the bill specify that a majority of members of the committees have to be learners or teachers and practitioners, which sounds good until you realise that that means that up to 49 per cent of the committees can be staff of the organisation. The bill requires that staff cannot be a majority; therefore, just under half of the members can be staff.

This goes back to the question that was asked a moment ago, but surely those committees do not require qualifications Scotland staff to be on them at all. They are committees that are supported by qualifications Scotland staff and that QS staff can draw on for advice. I struggle to understand why there would be a requirement for any staff to sit as a member of those committees. I would totally get it if staff were to provide a secretarial function and appear before the committee to ask it questions or be asked questions, but I am confused as to why there would be any members of staff sitting on the committees as members.