Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments in the group seek to pick up on a number of points, which I will take the committee through.

We have heard from various organisations and people working in the education system of difficulties with data sharing that mean that there are questions not only about how we can expand access to measures such as free school meals but about how we can widen access for people from poorer backgrounds and people with protected characteristics and care experience. Some of the pilots that have been carried out, particularly those in the north-east, have identified that data-sharing arrangements can be a barrier to progress.

The other aspect that is important to mention is that a unique learner number might make possible a much smoother learner journey. The learner number would follow young people through their education. If, for example, they needed support in their exams, that requirement could be attached to the learner number. Another example would be of a young person with additional support needs moving to another school. That approach would remove some of the responsibility from families for being project managers in their children’s lives, which can be really tiring and cumbersome. It would also allow authorities and others to identify what that particular person needs or wants.

The learner number could provide strong coherence all the way through the education system from when a young person enters it in the early years to when they conclude their learning journey—if we ever conclude it.

Amendment 244 seeks to require that the strategic advisory council advise qualifications Scotland on whether the creation of a unique learning number and consequential data sharing between schools, colleges and universities would support the aims of education in Scotland. It is important to note that the minister and the cabinet secretary have recognised in committee that there could be value in doing that, but both of them stopped short of saying that they would progress that or try to put it in place. My amendment seeks to require that that work is done and enable us to get the Government’s view of that on the record. The approach would allow us to make a little more progress towards sensible data sharing and coherence in the system.

There is also the option of amendment 328, which would require the strategic advisory council to provide advice on whether the creation of a unique learner number and consequential data sharing between schools, colleges and universities would support the functions of the chief inspector.

Members have two options to consider on the approach. One relates to the strategic advisory council in qualifications Scotland and the other relates to the chief inspector. What I propose could be a useful role and function for both of them; they would probably have a view on those issues.

I support the amendments that my colleague Ross Greer has outlined. The amendments in this group would strengthen accountability by requiring qualifications Scotland to report publicly not only on the advice that it receives from the strategic advisory council but its response to it. Including that in the annual report would reinforce the council’s role as a meaningful check on qualifications Scotland’s work and ensure that stakeholders could see how their input was shaping decision making.

Amendment 284, in my name, would require any advice from the strategic advisory council and qualifications Scotland’s response to be included in the annual report. Amendment 283 is a consequential amendment to enable amendment 284.

I take the point, and it is important that we strike a balance in that regard, but recent history has taught us that we have to err on the side of caution and of forcing the culture, in a way that I think that we can, to give credibility, teeth and accountability to the charters. If we do not have something in legislation that says how the charters should be monitored and, indeed, enforced, and how people can be involved in their development, they could be just tokenistic documents as opposed to living and valuable tools that young people and others can use to give effect to their rights. I take the point about tick-box exercises, but I would say that, without my amendments, the charters themselves could become tick-box exercises or part of a tokenistic approach.

Amendment 255 requires qualifications Scotland to work with those consulted to prepare and publish the learner charter. Again, as I have said, that process should include learners at every stage of the charter development and publication process.

Amendment 256 specifies that the learner charter applies to people of all ages undertaking qualifications, while amendment 260 ensures that adult learners who are not covered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child protections will nevertheless also have their additional needs recognised. Amendment 261 adds a requirement for qualifications Scotland to comply with the learner charter and to monitor that compliance, which will, again, strengthen the charter’s role.

Amendment 262 matches amendment 256 in replacing “persons” with

“children, young people and other persons”

to underline the fact that charters are relevant to all people of all ages who are undertaking qualifications.

Amendment 263 requires qualifications Scotland, when preparing the learner charter, to consult with parents and children and young people who are undertaking a qualification to ensure that the important voice of parents can continue to improve the charter’s development.

Amendment 264 requires qualifications Scotland to consult with people who use BSL, who have protected characteristics and who have additional support needs. I do not think that, at this point, I need rehearse the arguments as to why that is crucial.

Amendment 265 requires consultation with the qualifications Scotland board before producing the learner charter, so that we can get all of the relevant people on board in order to progress it appropriately, and amendment 266 requires qualifications Scotland to seek the view of the strategic advisory council and to revise the learner charter in line with any recommendations made by it. Amendment 268 is a paving amendment for later amendments.

Amendment 271 places a duty on qualifications Scotland to comply with the teacher and practitioner charter and to monitor its compliance.

Amendment 254 asks that the regulation-making provision outline

“the manner in which such concerns are to be raised”.

I take the point that the national qualifications body will set out and put in place a process for that, but does the cabinet secretary agree that the ways in which the body was or was not prepared to accept concerns in relation to the history exam caused significant concern in the sector, including in relation to how some history teachers were treated and how the exam and concerns about it were approached? Does the cabinet secretary accept that there should be some regulation from the Government to set out what is required, so that the qualifications body can at least set parameters around the Government’s expectations with regard to the manner in which such concerns should be raised and how the qualifications body should respond to them?

Indeed. The intention here is to recognise that the chief inspector must be independent of the Government. That is incredibly important but, as we heard in the evidence that was given to this committee, the bill does not recognise that.

I will speak to the amendments in the group that are in my name. Amendment 340 requires the chief inspector to share a copy of any report that is requested by the Scottish ministers and for it to be presented to the Parliament and to ministers at the same time.

Yes, I would be supportive of ensuring that equality in both directions. I hope that we will all have the time and headspace to turn our attention to amendments to that particular bill in due course. I will remind myself of this conversation at that point, as it would be entirely sensible to make the cross-reference.

My amendment 239 strengthens qualifications Scotland’s collaboration with Education Scotland to ensure that it is cognisant and takes account of recommendations from Education Scotland. The cabinet secretary made a point earlier about changes in the curriculum. That has to drive assessment and I think that we can all agree with that. The amendment seeks to strengthen that collaboration and make sure that the direction of travel is the right one, so that our young people are learning in the curriculum what they need for the future, as opposed to learning just for tests.

I move amendment 234.

That gets to the heart of what, last week, probably all of us agreed needs to be considered about what we do with the accreditation function. I fundamentally believe that we cannot continue to do that after this bill. If we do not get the bill right, we will have failed a group of young people, because we will have to start again.

I wish that the bill had included some of it in the first place but it did not do so; I made that clear in our stage 1 debate and in the amendments that I have lodged so far. On the basis of our discussion last week—in that, at stage 3, we will consider how the options for accreditation could look—I am still hopeful.

We have spoken about the SCQF Partnership, the inspectorate, Education Scotland and a new body, which, for the purposes of my amendments, I have called curriculum Scotland. On that basis, I do not intend to support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 290 at this stage, if it is pressed, not necessarily because I do not agree with its specific detail but because if, at stage 3, we look at one of those options, it would be neater to do it all at that point. I encourage Miles Briggs not to press amendment 290 on behalf of Stephen Kerr.

I whole-heartedly agree, and that is the reason why amendment 233 is important. If the cabinet secretary is minded to intervene on me, she might be able to respond to the point that she had to make to Ross Greer.

On the basis that the cabinet secretary has suggested that we work together at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 282 and 132 not moved.

Amendments 35 and 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15—Annual report of Qualifications Scotland

I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty defining moment in the work to reform Scotland’s education system. It is important that the committee and the Parliament approach all the decisions that we take about it very seriously. We have had much discussion on the amendments to the bill that explored how we can bring clarity and coherence to the system and create a system that is not driven by assessment and, instead, is driven by the curriculum and by what learners and employers need in the future.

My amendments in the group seek to address that point. As it stands, the bill fails to grasp what was said by the OECD, Professor Graham Donaldson, Professor Mark Priestley, Professor Kenneth Muir, the international council of education advisers and, most importantly, all Scotland’s teachers, which is that it is absolutely crucial that we do more to ensure that the curriculum and assessment functions work in a more suitable way for learners in Scotland. We were promised that the bill would do that sort of reform, but it was silent; Education Scotland’s functions are only being brought into the bill through amendment.

The amendments are not about adding complexity; they are about removing duplication, confusion and contradiction by creating a dedicated body to lead on the curriculum, as the stage 1 report and many experts have called for. This would be a coherent system that would ensure that the curriculum drives qualifications and not the other way around.