Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course.

Okay, five years—great. Our problem is that—[Interruption.].

I am sure that they will feature in the cabinet secretary’s statement and that there will be questions along those lines, but we are talking about the Education (Scotland) Bill. It is appropriate for us to lodge amendments that we consider would be helpful in giving the bill the value that it ought to have in transforming educational opportunities for young people in Scotland. It is appropriate for the committee to discuss wellbeing, for example, which is a systemic issue that inspections must confront directly.

Amendment 304 would require the chief inspector to consider the extent to which learners’ needs were being met and their wellbeing safeguarded. The key point about why the amendment has some worth is that it would provide a statutory basis for more serious and consistent inspection of behaviour, discipline and safety in our schools.

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for his intervention, but I am not sure that, under the very simple terms of amendment 289 in my name, what he suggests is likely to arise. All that the amendment does is to seek to establish a single framework. It would give the SCQF Partnership the statutory role of establishing a single framework for Scotland’s qualifications; it then goes to say that the qualifications would do exactly as has been identified in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group. With such an approach, the levels and points would be indicated, which would give real clarity to learners as to what their qualifications stacked up to. As I will go on to say, it would make things very clear to employers, too.

The SCQF Partnership already fulfils that valuable role. I take the member’s point in that respect, but what I am trying to do is to create some clarity. I am not, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, trying to add confusion—I am trying to create crystal-clear clarity about what this body does and the value that it brings to the total education landscape in Scotland. I am trying to give the SCQF Partnership a clear and legitimate statutory role that aligns with the functions that it already performs in practice. I am not seeking to duplicate anything—I am just seeking to give crystal-clear clarity about what the SCQF Partnership does.

Coming back to John Mason’s point, I recognise that the partnership is a registered Scottish charity that performs critical work in benchmarking, recognising and comparing qualifications and ensuring that they align with recognised credit levels. Nevertheless, I think that its excellent work operates in a somewhat grey space. It is influential, yes, but it has no defined legal mandate. I do not think that that is sustainable, because—and here I go back to the findings of the OECD—we already have so many bodies. Let us give the SCQF Partnership the distinction of being recognised in law for the excellent work that it does.

That is what amendment 289 proposes to do: it proposes to give the SCQF Partnership formal responsibility for accrediting qualifications to ensure that they meet published requirements. Giving the partnership the responsibility for defining and comparing qualifications in Scotland by establishing a unified framework that assigns levels and credit points to learning programmes will ensure clarity, accessibility and transferability across the education and employment sectors. The amendment seeks neither to displace qualifications Scotland nor to duplicate its work. Instead, it strengthens a valuable partner and gives learners, providers and employers clarity and confidence that qualifications accredited through the SCQF are subject to transparent public standards and institutional governance.

I will move on very quickly to amendment 229, which relates to the definition and role of the SCQF in the bill. It appears designed to formalise the framework itself, which I would support, but it does not assign the functions in the way that my amendment 289 does. That is why I think that amendment 289 has some value in the context of this group. Amendment 229 is helpful, but, as I have said, it does not set out the bolder articulation of the purpose of the SCQF in the way that amendment 289 does.

I welcome amendment 231, although, again, I think that it would be helpful to have amendment 289 alongside it, for the sake of clarity.

Amendment 238 seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland recognises the role of the SCQF. That already happens in practice, but the amendment gives it statutory backing. However, although I support its intent, I suggest that it would benefit from being nested within the more comprehensive structural definitions that I have included in amendment 289.

In conclusion, amendment 289 is a pragmatic proposal that seeks to give crystal-clear clarity to the education landscape when it comes to the salient institutions that learners, employers and others need to know about and appreciate. Being able to say what something does—I recall the old adage about something doing what it says on the tin—is what amendment 289 is all about. By creating a clear understanding of what organisations exist to do, it enhances coherence in the system and will make Scottish qualifications and the Scottish qualifications landscape more transparent, more navigable and more understandable, not just for professionals and institutions but, as I have said—and this is the critical group that I have in mind with amendment 289—for learners themselves.

I commend amendment 289 to the committee.

In the light of what I have heard the cabinet secretary say, I have a relatively easy task because I am more than happy to collaborate with her in respect of amendment 236.

This group of amendments goes to the very heart of why we are in the place where we have arrived. It is down to the issue of trust, which the cabinet secretary herself has highlighted. Comments from Ross Greer and Pam Duncan-Glancy underlined the importance of this legislation in restoring trust. Amendment 236 is important because it answers the fundamental question how a national qualifications body should approach its work and we are trying to be helpful by indicating in the bill what that approach should be.

Amendment 236 would insert an additional general duty on qualifications Scotland to act in a way that respects the professional judgment of teachers and practitioners. That principle of professional respect is not just symbolic but crucial. I am afraid that the historic breakdown of trust between the SQA and its many interconnecting audiences and collaborators that we are all talking about is especially true when it comes to teachers.

Ken Muir said in his review that there was a consistent call in the feedback received for a rebalancing of the relationship between schools and national agencies, and that teachers and school leaders feel unheard and constrained by inflexible systems and a lack of professional trust. Amendment 236 responds directly to that, as does the whole group of amendments. Qualifications Scotland should not merely serve learners in a vacuum; it should work in partnership with and respect those who teach, mentor and assess learners daily.

It is inarguable that education is in a tricky spot at the moment on any international comparison. Scottish educational outcomes have declined in the past decade or so. The SQA has failed repeatedly and the lack of trust in that institution is a key reason why we are here in the first place.

To many people, Education Scotland is an organisation with little influence or positive impact on education—a point that I made earlier and which I will no doubt come back to. Many parents feel estranged from their child’s school life, and many teachers fear that the institutions, both educational and parliamentary, will not have their back when needed. That must change.

Amendment 236, along with the others that I have lodged, not least my amendments on whistleblowing, aim to steer education back to where there is a broad consensus that it needs to be. If our education system is to live up to its great heritage, whereby it is recognised as world-leading, and key to why Scots pioneered the modern world—a subject on which we could all wax lyrical for a long time—with great inventions and institutions, we must put teachers back in the driving seat of the curriculum.

As it stands, the bill includes the duty to

“promote and advance education and training”

and to

“have regard to the needs and interests of persons using its services”.

That formulation is repeated in other statutory bodies, but those are generalised statements. Amendment 236 proposes something precise. The theme of our debate on this grouping has been having something more precise and responsive to the issues identified as being at the heart of why we need a reform process and the bill.

There is also a need to treat Scotland’s educators not as delivery agents but as valued professionals. If we are to ensure lasting change, we must define and legislate for the values that will guide that work. Amendment 236, in particular, puts front and centre the respect for teaching professionals that has too often been neglected by national agencies. I would urge the committee to support it, but I do not think that I need to include that sentiment, because I will follow what has been recommended by the cabinet secretary. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that it comes back in a form that is more acceptable to us all.

No. I think that my amendment 289 provides a framework that does not currently exist in statute. It creates clarity around what the different bodies do within the context of the bill that introduces qualifications Scotland. It explains what the roles of those different bodies are.

For example—and we will come on to this—there are, I think, enormous questions about the role and purposes of Education Scotland. I regularly ask people in education, “What is the point of Education Scotland? What does it do for you?” The truth of the matter is that I very rarely get any kind of answer that adds up to any value at all.

In the light of what I have heard the cabinet secretary say, I have a relatively easy task because I am more than happy to collaborate with her in respect of amendment 236.

This group of amendments goes to the very heart of why we are in the place where we have arrived. It is down to the issue of trust, which the cabinet secretary herself has highlighted. Comments from Ross Greer and Pam Duncan-Glancy underlined the importance of this legislation in restoring trust. Amendment 236 is important because it answers the fundamental question how a national qualifications body should approach its work and we are trying to be helpful by indicating in the bill what that approach should be.

Amendment 236 would insert an additional general duty on qualifications Scotland to act in a way that respects the professional judgment of teachers and practitioners. That principle of professional respect is not just symbolic but crucial. I am afraid that the historic breakdown of trust between the SQA and its many interconnecting audiences and collaborators that we are all talking about is especially true when it comes to teachers.

Ken Muir said in his review that there was a consistent call in the feedback received for a rebalancing of the relationship between schools and national agencies, and that teachers and school leaders feel unheard and constrained by inflexible systems and a lack of professional trust. Amendment 236 responds directly to that, as does the whole group of amendments. Qualifications Scotland should not merely serve learners in a vacuum; it should work in partnership with and respect those who teach, mentor and assess learners daily.

It is inarguable that education is in a tricky spot at the moment on any international comparison. Scottish educational outcomes have declined in the past decade or so. The SQA has failed repeatedly and the lack of trust in that institution is a key reason why we are here in the first place.

To many people, Education Scotland is an organisation with little influence or positive impact on education—a point that I made earlier and which I will no doubt come back to. Many parents feel estranged from their child’s school life, and many teachers fear that the institutions, both educational and parliamentary, will not have their back when needed. That must change.

Amendment 236, along with the others that I have lodged, not least my amendments on whistleblowing, aim to steer education back to where there is a broad consensus that it needs to be. If our education system is to live up to its great heritage, whereby it is recognised as world-leading, and key to why Scots pioneered the modern world—a subject on which we could all wax lyrical for a long time—with great inventions and institutions, we must put teachers back in the driving seat of the curriculum.

As it stands, the bill includes the duty to

“promote and advance education and training”

and to

“have regard to the needs and interests of persons using its services”.

That formulation is repeated in other statutory bodies, but those are generalised statements. Amendment 236 proposes something precise. The theme of our debate on this grouping has been having something more precise and responsive to the issues identified as being at the heart of why we need a reform process and the bill.

There is also a need to treat Scotland’s educators not as delivery agents but as valued professionals. If we are to ensure lasting change, we must define and legislate for the values that will guide that work. Amendment 236, in particular, puts front and centre the respect for teaching professionals that has too often been neglected by national agencies. I would urge the committee to support it, but I do not think that I need to include that sentiment, because I will follow what has been recommended by the cabinet secretary. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that it comes back in a form that is more acceptable to us all.

I cannot see how it adds to confusion to clarify any statute.

I fully understand the point that the cabinet secretary makes, but does she accept what the OECD said about cluttering the educational landscape with bodies? Does she agree that we ought to do something?

She points to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 238, if I understand what she is saying. Does she believe that we should do something to recognise the distinctive and valuable contribution that is made by the SCQF Partnership?

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for his intervention, but I am not sure that, under the very simple terms of amendment 289 in my name, what he suggests is likely to arise. All that the amendment does is to seek to establish a single framework. It would give the SCQF Partnership the statutory role of establishing a single framework for Scotland’s qualifications; it then goes to say that the qualifications would do exactly as has been identified in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group. With such an approach, the levels and points would be indicated, which would give real clarity to learners as to what their qualifications stacked up to. As I will go on to say, it would make things very clear to employers, too.

The SCQF Partnership already fulfils that valuable role. I take the member’s point in that respect, but what I am trying to do is to create some clarity. I am not, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, trying to add confusion—I am trying to create crystal-clear clarity about what this body does and the value that it brings to the total education landscape in Scotland. I am trying to give the SCQF Partnership a clear and legitimate statutory role that aligns with the functions that it already performs in practice. I am not seeking to duplicate anything—I am just seeking to give crystal-clear clarity about what the SCQF Partnership does.

Coming back to John Mason’s point, I recognise that the partnership is a registered Scottish charity that performs critical work in benchmarking, recognising and comparing qualifications and ensuring that they align with recognised credit levels. Nevertheless, I think that its excellent work operates in a somewhat grey space. It is influential, yes, but it has no defined legal mandate. I do not think that that is sustainable, because—and here I go back to the findings of the OECD—we already have so many bodies. Let us give the SCQF Partnership the distinction of being recognised in law for the excellent work that it does.

That is what amendment 289 proposes to do: it proposes to give the SCQF Partnership formal responsibility for accrediting qualifications to ensure that they meet published requirements. Giving the partnership the responsibility for defining and comparing qualifications in Scotland by establishing a unified framework that assigns levels and credit points to learning programmes will ensure clarity, accessibility and transferability across the education and employment sectors. The amendment seeks neither to displace qualifications Scotland nor to duplicate its work. Instead, it strengthens a valuable partner and gives learners, providers and employers clarity and confidence that qualifications accredited through the SCQF are subject to transparent public standards and institutional governance.

I will move on very quickly to amendment 229, which relates to the definition and role of the SCQF in the bill. It appears designed to formalise the framework itself, which I would support, but it does not assign the functions in the way that my amendment 289 does. That is why I think that amendment 289 has some value in the context of this group. Amendment 229 is helpful, but, as I have said, it does not set out the bolder articulation of the purpose of the SCQF in the way that amendment 289 does.

I welcome amendment 231, although, again, I think that it would be helpful to have amendment 289 alongside it, for the sake of clarity.

Amendment 238 seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland recognises the role of the SCQF. That already happens in practice, but the amendment gives it statutory backing. However, although I support its intent, I suggest that it would benefit from being nested within the more comprehensive structural definitions that I have included in amendment 289.

In conclusion, amendment 289 is a pragmatic proposal that seeks to give crystal-clear clarity to the education landscape when it comes to the salient institutions that learners, employers and others need to know about and appreciate. Being able to say what something does—I recall the old adage about something doing what it says on the tin—is what amendment 289 is all about. By creating a clear understanding of what organisations exist to do, it enhances coherence in the system and will make Scottish qualifications and the Scottish qualifications landscape more transparent, more navigable and more understandable, not just for professionals and institutions but, as I have said—and this is the critical group that I have in mind with amendment 289—for learners themselves.

I commend amendment 289 to the committee.