Seòmar agus comataidhean

George Adam’s intervention is very helpful, because it adds weight to my concerns about frequency. Even an outstanding school in England is inspected every four to five years.

I am always reassured when I hear ministers say that they are not seeking power to dictate. [Laughter.] I still harbour a concern, but I am willing to go along—

As amendment 337 is consequential on my amendment 304, which I did not move, I will not be moving it, either.

I will restrict my remarks to amendments 346 and 347, both in my name.

I will again speak to the importance of robust and regular reporting on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system. My amendments go to the heart of what accountability in education should mean. They are about ensuring that the new system of education governance established by the bill does not just monitor individual schools but keeps a watchful, transparent eye on the system as a whole.

Amendment 346 would place a duty on the chief inspector to publish a comprehensive national-level report every year, assessing the overall performance of the education system in Scotland. Those reports would have to include a summary of the findings of the inspections carried out during the reporting period in relation to the performance of the Scottish education system, an assessment of the aims of current education policy in Scotland, the implementation of current education policy in Scotland and any recommendations on education policy and its implementation.

The amendments are not about adding layers of bureaucracy; they are about anchoring our system in evidence, openness and long-term thinking. Without periodic national-level assessments of performance, we cannot claim to be running a genuinely accountable system.

The chief inspector will have privileged insight into what is happening across all sectors of education. They will have access to the full range of inspection data, thematic reviews, stakeholder feedback and trends in quality assurance. That position carries a national responsibility, and the system must report not only on individual establishments, but on patterns, progress, gaps and risks.

As things stand, Education Scotland publishes an annual report, but it is often descriptive and selective. The new chief inspector, as established by the bill, must be required to go further. They must tell the full story of Scottish education—its strengths, its weaknesses and its trajectory. Amendment 346 would mandate that responsibility. That is entirely consistent with the wider vision laid out in the Muir review, which called for clearer structures, better accountability and a renewed focus on improvement across the system. It also aligns with recommendations from the OECD review of curriculum for excellence.

In short, our national education system must be able to see itself clearly. We must be able to measure where we are, track where we are going and reflect on how we are doing. Such a report would also allow Parliament to engage more constructively with education. Too often, debate about our schools is driven by newspaper headlines, isolated statistics or anecdote.

Amendment 346 would allow the chief inspector to include in their report such themes or areas of focus as they judged relevant. That is important, because education is a dynamic, evolving field, and new challenges emerge. For instance, digital learning, post-Covid recovery, additional support needs and regional disparities might all merit special attention at different times, and amendment 346 would give the chief inspector the flexibility to spotlight those issues in a national context.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the proposal is not inconsistent; rather, it is in line with international comparators. In jurisdictions such Ontario, New Zealand and Finland, regular system-wide reports are published by independent bodies, and those reports are used to inform strategy, promote transparency and support dialogue between Government, the profession and the public. I believe that Scotland should be no different.

Finally, I note that these amendments would be not just a technical improvement but a statement of intent. They would say that we believe in evidence over spin, in scrutiny over secrecy, and in the power of democratic accountability to drive improvement. They would say that we are not afraid to ask hard questions, to look honestly at performance and to act on what we learn. Amendments 346 and 347 are not just amendments to the bill; they are an invitation to build a culture of learning at every level of our education system, including the Government. They reflect the values of professionalism, honesty and service, and they would give the chief inspector a national role worthy of the trust that the public place in Scottish education. I urge the committee to support both amendments.

I move amendment 346.

I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary, and I will withdraw amendment 341 and focus on my next two amendments.

Amendment 341, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 183 not moved.

Amendment 342 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 343 not moved.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

After section 38

Amendment 344 not moved.

Section 39—Report on performance of the Scottish education system

Amendment 184 not moved.

Amendment 345 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

I will speak only to my amendment 319 and in support of amendment 170, in the name of Sue Webber. These are short but significant amendments that seek to align the operation of the new inspection system with the highest standards of transparency, inclusion and responsiveness. They sit pretty comfortably with the debate that we have just had on the previous group.

Amendment 319 would require the chief inspector, in exercising any of their functions, to do so in a way that ensures effective communication and engagement with all stakeholders in the education system, including learners, parents, carers, educators, education authorities and national bodies, on the foundational principle that those who are affected by public service delivery should have the opportunity to engage meaningfully with how those services are scrutinised and improved. The amendment would bring that principle into the heart of the chief inspector’s statutory duties.

Amendment 170, which I support, complements that by requiring the chief inspector to

“consider all areas of work by the educational establishment”

and to

“consider outcomes for persons undertaking qualifications in the educational establishment”.

I refer to the OECD review of the curriculum for excellence, which noted that stakeholders in Scotland often feel disconnected from national agencies in decision making. It recommended stronger consultation, co-construction and dialogue, and the amendments would operationalise that vision. Similarly, the Muir review made it clear that national bodies must engage more directly and transparently with schools and communities, that that engagement must be structured and not ad hoc, and that it must be part of how the chief inspector operates and not a box-ticking exercise. That is what amendment 319 would achieve.

There has been a useful debate, and I think that, among the members who are present and who have participated, there is a great degree of unanimity on what the amendments seek to do, which is to reinforce the idea that inspection is not something that is done to schools or to learners; that it should be a collaborative and developmental process; and that, if we are to win trust in the new system from the education workforce and the wider public, engagement and voice must be built in from the start. I therefore press amendment 319.

Amendment 319 agreed to.

Amendment 168 not moved.

Amendment 169 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 170 not moved.

The friendly critical voice is quite a well-known concept in mentoring, coaching and supporting people. We all need a friendly critical voice in our lives, and I am proposing that that should be the cultural context in which the inspections take place. It is intended to be a positive culture, rather than the culture that might exist currently here, or in other places, in respect of school inspections. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that is a valuable role that a school inspector could play?

Amendments 305, 306 and 310 address the crucial matter of the frequency of school inspections. The amendments that I have lodged in the group all stem from one central belief, which is that every learner in Scotland, regardless of their postcode, has the right to attend a school that is regularly and rigorously inspected. It is a matter of equity, quality assurance and public trust.

Amendment 306 introduces a statutory requirement that every education authority establishment be inspected

“at least once within every 3 years”.

The amendment is straightforward but essential, because it is a response to a long-standing and well-documented concern—the absence of regular, consistent inspections across the system, which we have discussed many times in the chamber and in the committee. Audit Scotland has noted in multiple reports that there is no current statutory duty for cyclical inspections of schools in Scotland and that the current system relies on a risk-based and sampling model that leaves large gaps.

As of recent years, only a small percentage of schools have been inspected in a year. Many schools have gone 10 years or more without an inspection at all, and that is not accountability—that is abdication.

Will the member give way?