Seòmar agus comataidhean

Curriculum Scotland would contain many of the functions of Education Scotland, along with the improvement function that Ken Muir spoke about and the SQA’s accreditation and regulation directorate. That would bring coherence to the education landscape as opposed to cluttering it, and there would be scope to move current functions and the resources that are associated with them. I take the member’s points about cost.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that trade unions already have representatives on boards, such as is being proposed here, and that they are well versed in managing those kinds of conflicts of interest and could be a beneficial addition because they work in the organisation, they have direct experience of what it is like to work in that organisation and they represent the trade union? Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that those members are well placed to manage such a conflict of interest but also to bring that richness of information about what it is like to work there?

The member makes a strong case, but can I clarify whether he intends to support our amendments on the representation of trade unions on the board?

As we have discussed this morning and during the committee’s consultation on the bill, it is recognised that our qualifications system must reflect the diversity among all of Scotland’s learners, including in relation to those who sit at the table. Amendment 225 would address how qualifications Scotland would listen to, learn from and work with people who will be most affected by its decisions.

We can probably all agree that people who are affected by such decisions have not always been listened to optimally and that we need to address that, so amendments in that regard will be incredibly important. Strong governance comes not from the boardroom alone but from inclusive structures that bring in the lived experience of learners, educators, parents and communities. That is why the committees and their structures that are set out in the bill are crucial and why it is important that we discuss who will be on those committees and how they will operate.

The amendments reflect a shared understanding that participation should be built into the fabric of the new agency—not just as a principle but as a practice—and that the diversity of everybody in the system should be reflected. If we are serious about equity and fairness in education, the way in which the new qualifications body will make decisions must be inclusive, transparent and collaborative. That principle is at the heart of the group of amendments that we are discussing. The amendments differ in their specific proposals, but I think that they are all united in a common goal, which is to strengthen the legitimacy and responsiveness of qualifications Scotland by embedding representation, accountability and consultation in its structures.

Amendment 225, in my name, would ensure that, when appointing members to its committees, qualifications Scotland “must have regard” to representing the interests of those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are care experienced. The amendment speaks to some of the serious concerns about Scotland’s education system in recent years. It will ensure that the learners who most need the qualifications system to work for them and be responsive to their needs and those who are usually underrepresented—not just in relation to qualifications but in staff bodies like qualifications Scotland—are carefully considered when members are being appointed to committees.

Amendment 225 presents an opportunity for that expertise to be right at the centre of committees, and it speaks to the principle that there should be nothing about us without us when it comes to care-experienced people, people with protected characteristics and people with socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds—I have mentioned it previously, but there is probably merit in mentioning again that the group of people who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage is feeling particularly let down, given what happened in 2020. That should be the case for all public bodies that we set up, and amendment 225 is an attempt to make sure that qualifications Scotland serves all Scotland’s learners.

Amendment 227 would require the learner interest committee to include a representative of the parents of children and young people who were undertaking a relevant qualifications Scotland qualifications. That would mean that qualifications Scotland would benefit from the expertise of parents, who, if I am honest, felt a bit out of the loop with the bill. The amendment would give them the opportunity to have their rightful seat at the table to shape and improve the work of qualifications Scotland.

I understand what my colleague Ross Greer is seeking to achieve with amendments 50 and 120. In some ways, they are a bit circular in relation to consultation, given all the different groups and committees that are listed. I know that he is trying to make sure that everything is collaborative, but I wonder whether the amendments might have overstretched. On amendment 120, students who take advanced highers or do apprenticeships should be engaged and represented on the committee, but I am not sure that the wording of the amendment would allow for that. I suspect that that is not deliberate.

Amendment 228 would require qualifications Scotland’s teacher and practitioner interest committee to include a number of representatives to ensure that the views of trade unions and key education stakeholders were heard on it, including

“one or more persons who are representatives of an education trade union operating in Scotland ... one or more persons with knowledge in the areas which are the subject of Qualifications Scotland qualifications ... one or more persons with knowledge of business and industry”

and

“a representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland”.

I will take a moment to talk about that. Given the relationships between local authorities, the Government, schools and the education structures, it is really important that we make sure that there is that representation. The same goes for Colleges Scotland, the SFC, Skills Development Scotland and Universities Scotland, which all have an interest here. I appreciate that I have listed a lot of people, but a lot of people have a stake and an interest in the matter. All the organisations that are mentioned in amendment 228 have a stake in our education system succeeding, being on the front foot, being fleet of foot and being world leading again, so I encourage members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 225.

In what way does the member think that parents should be engaged?

If the issue is just about the definition, could the amendment be supported at stage 2 and the definition be added at stage 3?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement with the amendments in this group, and in particular for the offer to work on some of them at stage 3. I will come to that as I go through my amendments.

The amendments in this section are very important. Suffice it to say that all the amendments to the bill are important, but these are about giving a voice on the board of an organisation not just so that we can guarantee that it has expertise on it, but so that we can get trust back into the centre of our qualifications structure.

Important decisions about the membership of qualifications Scotland need to be taken, with a variety of different interests at heart, and the amendments in my name in this group try to make sure that that happens. We have seen what happens when we do not have that; we can have a disconnected education and skills system if we do not have representatives who recognise what is needed for future skills as well as what is needed for school qualifications.

It is important that we have trade union representation—I intervened on the cabinet secretary earlier in that respect. It is crucial that we recognise the role of trade unions. This committee has spent a considerable time arguing for the trade unions of colleges to be represented on boards, and that has to extend to qualifications Scotland, too. I do not think that some of the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged do quite what I am trying to do, which is to give a direct voice to staff on boards. If qualifications are to be really meaningful, we have to ensure that they are relevant to the real world, too, and I have also lodged some amendments in relation to that.

My amendments 211 and 212 increase the size of qualifications Scotland’s board to between 10 and 12 people, which is really important. The amendments are direct alternatives to the cabinet secretary’s amendments 41 and 42; the cabinet secretary is looking to increase the number on the board to between 7 and 11, but my amendment creates a board of between 10 and 12, which is necessary to accommodate the broader representation that I have suggested in my amendments 216 and 218. By increasing the size of the board, I am ensuring that staff, education unions and industry leaders can contribute to the governance of qualifications Scotland without sacrificing expertise or limiting the diversity of the boards. A board of that size will ensure that the qualifications Scotland governance model is participative and responsive, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is prepared to support the proposal.

I am not sure that amendment 27, in Ross Greer’s name, is strong enough to guarantee any trade union representation on the boards; it also appears to—unintentionally, I imagine—exclude representatives of teachers and college staff. I believe that the amendments in my name provide a more balanced offer and give voice to teachers and staff in schools and colleges. I would be willing to work with the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer at stage 3 to find alternatives, if both were prepared to do so. I have been trying to keep on top of the numbers of the amendments that the cabinet secretary spoke to—I think that I heard her say that she would be prepared to consider the matter at stage 3, and I am hoping that Ross Greer might, too.

Amendment 213 requires Scottish ministers to consult the whole board of qualifications Scotland when making regulations. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary supports that, because it is really important. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that a chair would consult their board in ordinary circumstances—indeed, I am quite sure that they would—but we have seen some less than acceptable circumstances in the sphere that we are discussing, and anything that we can do to protect against such circumstances will be important. That is why amendment 213, in my name, has been lodged.

Amendment 214 requires one member of qualifications Scotland to undertake a qualifications Scotland qualification, replacing the requirement for a member to

“appear to have knowledge of the interests of persons undertaking a relevant qualification.”

I understand the point that the cabinet secretary has made and the amendment that Ross Greer has lodged on the matter. I think that this is really important, because people who are undertaking qualifications in real time can tell us exactly the sort of experience that they had during the history of qualification and exactly what is happening in schools and what support they are getting. They can also give us incredible insight into the ways in which assessment interacts with curriculum, which we know has been a concern in the past. That is why I feel quite strongly about that particular amendment.

Amendment 215 ensures that schoolteachers are represented on the qualifications Scotland board. I take the point about other teachers, such as college teachers, and the fact that, given the pre-emption in relation to her amendment 43, the cabinet secretary said that she would be prepared to bring the matter back at stage 3, supporting this amendment, which her own amendment pre-empts—I think that I have those numbers right. On that basis, providing that schoolteachers are represented on the board in a stage 3 amendment that we can agree on, I would be prepared to hold amendment 215 until stage 3.

Amendment 216 requires the board to contain a representative of a

“trade union operating in Scotland.”

I think that that ensures that the new board is informed by the voices of those with a stake in the delivery of the new qualifications in schools, colleges and other training facilities, not only by the voices of those who manage them. We need that, because previous reforms have not engaged appropriately with front-line educators. I spoke earlier about the distance between the front-line decisions and decision making and the clutter in the middle—indeed, I think that my colleague wants to comment on that.

Given the difference, I do not think that it would be beyond the will or wit of Government to move staff with the necessary capabilities.

Moreover, surely it is sensible to put accreditation in the office of the chief inspector rather than leave it in the qualifications body, where there would be zero difference and which is far more about marking its own homework. The cabinet secretary appears to be suggesting that there is a difference, so that could be a useful separation.

I am sure that I will have an opportunity to explain a wee bit more shortly, but does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government’s chosen expert—Professor Ken Muir, who published a report on the matter—does not share the concerns about those two functions being in the same body? Why does the Government not agree with the expert?

I have to say that I share the member’s concerns about the willingness to do anything different at stage 3. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has indicated at all that any of the other options for change will be considered—[Interruption.]