Seòmar agus comataidhean

In many ways, that question goes back to my earlier answers to Willie Rennie about what information is collated. Part of that is the curriculum for excellence levels data, which we gather in order to assess young people’s progression through the levels. It is very important to look at what has been learned over that period, and the data is there. It is also important to look at the health and wellbeing of young people through that process. In December, there will be another survey on health and wellbeing, so that we can assure ourselves about where we are on that aspect. Of course, we expect the Government to keep a close eye on that not just because of the pandemic but generally. The national improvement framework interactive evidence report provides an overview of what we know about education and the context of young people’s progress, so that is being looked at.

Work is also under way to gather additional evidence for the 2022 national improvement framework from the lockdown lowdown survey as well as from surveys of headteachers and from the health and wellbeing census of pupils from P5 to S6.

That is why we are assessing it.

Ensuring the credibility of the process is important. The past two years have been like no others that we could have imagined or planned for when it came to what happened with the exams.

I made a point earlier about the professional judgment of our teachers. That has come to the fore over the past few years, proving that there are different ways of carrying out an assessment process that can lead to a qualification that is still credible.

Members do not have to take my word for it—or even the word of the SQA, even though one of its guiding principles is to ensure the credibility of the process and even though it works exceptionally hard to allow that to happen. We need only look at how the process was received by employers. I was heartened by a letter led by Sandy Begbie and signed by many other employers that credited our children and young people for going through what might have been a different process and facing challenges that none of the rest of us had to face when we were going through our exams—no matter how long ago that was—and which made it clear that employers had faith in what young people received at the end of the day.

Again, I pay tribute to the university sector, which worked in an exceptionally close way with Government and the SQA to understand the process and, as a result, to have faith in it when it came to entry requirements. The reaction of both universities and employers demonstrates the credibility of the approach that has been taken in the past couple of years and the fact that there are different ways of having a credible assessment system.

You are correct to say that that is a bit of a left-field question, Mr Ewing, but I shall do my best to answer it.

You have raised an important point about the use of technology. However, this is not just about having a device, and I will broaden things out slightly to talk about connectivity, which is important, too. I am being reassured that the experiences and outcomes include the use of technology. They may not go as far as Mr Ewing wishes on touch typing, but I hope that I have given him as much reassurance as I can that the use of technology is in the technologies Es and Os.

Some of the areas of skills shortage are not in highly paid jobs. One way to attract people to work in social care would be by having a fairer work policy and a better standard of pay. The health secretary made announcements on that yesterday. Some aspects of employment and fair work are reserved to Westminster. We face challenges with some areas of low-paid work—some sectors are not attractive because of the wages that are offered. It might help if the real living wage was more substantial.

In other areas, the challenge is to skill people up. During the pandemic, we looked at micro-credential courses and we are interested to see what more can be done with those. They might allow people to move from one sector to another or to upskill, which would support the need for skills across the economy. When we look at the national transition training fund, we are assessing how successful those micro-credential courses have been and whether they have allowed for upskilling or have helped people to change careers. It is important to assess what we are doing.

I take that issue exceptionally seriously. We expect the equalities duties to be taken seriously and undertaken thoroughly across our agencies. I last spoke to the SQA’s chief examiner on Monday this week to discuss the issue and to again be reassured by her about the work that is now in place to ensure that everything that needs to be done on the issue is being done. I am reassured that all the required equality impact assessments in relation to the awarding of national qualifications over the past two years were completed and have been published. That is in addition to those that were published by the Scottish Government. Clearly, there has been substandard practice in years gone by. That has been recognised, and those historical policies are being looked at and actioned.

I will look at the OECD report in its entirety. My officials and I have not only read the executive summary and recommendations; we have read the report, substantial as it is, so of course I have looked at every aspect of it. As I said in my previous answer, as we respond in full to the OECD review, I will challenge myself and we will challenge ourselves about whether more needs to be done on data to ensure that people have confidence in what is collected and that it is done in the right way.

We must be clear about what the OECD report said on standardised assessments. As I said at the start, standardised assessments do not judge the totality of curriculum for excellence. That was never their point. It is not what they were designed to do and, therefore, it is not surprising that they do not do that.

That has been discussed at great length in what is now the NQ22 group. Clearly, there were understandable concerns about the workload pressures that the alternative certification model presented to staff last year. We are not in that circumstance this year, as we are not doing the alternative certification model.

The key point that has been looked at, and on which a discussion is taking place, is about what the contingencies are, and a reassurance that no additional assessments will be required that teachers will have to carry out. That is a very important reassurance for teachers because, as I have said, they are still in the middle of dealing with the pandemic. The Government and the SQA were very keen to ensure that we took cognisance of the impact that decisions would have on teacher workload.

As I think I said earlier, we need to look at that to ensure that we are gathering the correct data about the correct areas. Although that is more challenging in some areas of curriculum for excellence than in others, we need to be up to that challenge.

There will be a review of the national improvement framework measurements in 2022. That will allow stakeholders to assess, with Government, how we have measured for the NIF in the past, whether that is correct, what needs to change, and what they would like to change it to. Although areas to do with health and wellbeing are, of course, already part of our analysis, it is the right time—as we move out of Covid—to ensure that we are doing that correctly. That consultation will happen early next year.

As I said, it is considering the four harms approach as a whole. Disruption to learning is one of the key issues. The sub-group advised that face coverings should be included in the mitigations that are in place in our schools, because the balance of the four harms approach included face masks as an important mitigation measure that allows less disruption in schools, which has a major impact on children’s health and wellbeing.