Seòmar agus comataidhean

Dr Bloomer, do you have a view on whether we need to revisit much of the debate around the role of the chief education officer in local authorities, with a direct read-across to the curriculum?

That is helpful. There is a lot in there to reflect on, which will take us into the next parliamentary session. These are issues that clearly should be addressed, and it was interesting to hear the witnesses’ different perspectives.

12:15

I do not want to seem flippant, but that is the sense that I get when I talk to professionals: there is a balance of feeling frustration but also a sense of opportunity.

It was interesting to hear what you said about the tangential issues that sit around the CIC. When Mr Rennie, Mr Briggs and I were at the EIS manifesto launch, a contributor from the floor said, “If, as a primary teacher, I’m given another thematic week to deliver, I’m just gonnae go mad. I’m trying to engage in a curriculum improvement cycle, look at my Es and Os and do all that, and then I keep getting these thematic weeks.” Those weeks are supposed to enhance the experience of young people, but they actually clutter the landscape to some extent. Would you recognise that that is something that we need to look at in tandem with the CIC?

I will move the discussion on slightly into a different area; I may be about to open—or reopen—a can of worms. During the passage of the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, there was a wide discussion about the role of the chief education officer and statutory powers. However, those were not defined with regard to what further role the chief education officer might have in this area, for example. Without relitigating, if you like, much of that, I would be keen to get a sense of whether you think that there is a wider role for the chief education officer in this space at a local level. I am not asking you to define what that would be today, but should we be having that debate once again, in the light of wider curriculum improvement? I appreciate that the witnesses may take different views.

10:15

I dare say that that will be on the agenda for the Parliament in the next session, and perhaps for our successor committee. It is useful to have that on the record this morning.

We had a discussion with the previous panel about the purpose and role of sixth year. I do not know whether you caught any of the discussion, but Dr Bloomer was reflecting that sixth year has evolved as an experience for learners, and he said that it is probably in a better place than it was previously. He noted that there is a range and depth to the experience that did not exist many years ago. Dr Bloomer argued that, if we have four-year degrees plus a sixth-year experience, there may be a need for better synergy. Is it your view that we need to look at reform of the very senior phase, if I can use that expression? I ask Kirsty Ayed to respond first, as she is engaged with school life.

That is interesting. Two decades ago, a sixth-year student who shall remain nameless had exactly that experience in that he received an unconditional offer midway through the year. He was doing two advanced highers that he did not require, and he was also head boy, which took up his time. Many of us around the table who experienced sixth year, even if it was two decades ago, would probably say the same thing. It is interesting that Dr Bloomer felt that it had advanced, but perhaps it has stagnated. Is it fair to say that?

I appreciate that other panellists want to come in. We will have a framework review of universities, which will focus on structural issues, predominantly funding. Do you think that it will be important for many of the people we are speaking to in the meeting to be part of that conversation? If we are going to look at all the issues and put them on the table, does this conversation have to be part of that?

There is a lot of merit in it, given the development opportunities that we now afford young people in sixth year and the experiences that they have, which we know to be very important in that wider context. It is not all about preparing people for university, because not everyone goes.

Based on what you said, Professor Hayward, could we focus a lot more on the transferable skills that people will require for the next stage of their journey? Is it your sense that sixth year could be used more meaningfully—not only to provide the qualifications that enable someone to move to the next phase, but also to prepare them for life more broadly?

I will follow on from the point about teachers’ views of the curriculum improvement cycle. We have heard a lot this morning about what teachers feel that they need in order to engage properly, and we have covered in detail the point about INSET days and so. However, I have spoken to some teachers who feel some trepidation about ensuring that we get this right. I spoke to a number of religious, moral and philosophical studies teachers, particularly about the Es and Os and some of the challenges in the denominational and non-denominational sectors. There is a sense of anticipation about the opportunity but also some trepidation. Does Mr Harvey want to reflect on that and say what more we can do to give confidence to rank-and-file teachers about their role in this?