Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will talk about some of the progress in due course, convener, but the context is important. One of the findings from the committee’s report back in 2022 was that the pandemic had led to on-going impacts on our schools. That is not limited to Scotland; we see it across the United Kingdom. The United Nations has also produced a body of work on young people’s attainment post-pandemic. Two years out of formal schooling has impacted on attainment—we see that in relation to exam results, for example. The context matters and we need to be mindful of it.

The cost of living crisis also matters. It has compounded poverty for many families who are on the fringes of our society. If we look back to 2015-16, when PEF was first announced, the interventions that were made at that time were more targeted towards the educational space, but I now see that fund being routinely used for welfare interventions, for example in the employment of income maximisation officers, and I am sure that you see that on your visits, convener. I referred to that in my opening comment quite deliberately. In a school in Dundee, I saw PEF money being used to help families to access cheaper gas and electricity. PEF is being used in a wider sense than was originally intended, and the context of poverty needs to be understood.

I am pleased that we have made progress across a number of different measures.

I think that we made progress in the 2016 to 2021 Parliament.

I accept that we would have liked to have seen further progress, but in the context of the pandemic—

The Government looked at the programme prior to my time in office—I think that it was around the time of the committee’s report—and reflected on the way in which funding was allocated. There was a bit of learning for the Government around that and we moved to the strategic equity fund model, which essentially accepts—the challenge was put to us by local authorities and others—that poverty exists in all local authorities. The move away from the nine challenge authorities to a more equitable distribution model involved a bit of learning for the Government in relation to how we can better support local authorities, so I accept that. We also now have a team of attainment advisers in Education Scotland, led by Dr David Gregory, who is on my right. They provide targeted support to individual local authorities. I do not think that those attainment advisers were in place at the launch of the SAC funding.

In a previous response, I set out some of the progress that has been made. The positive destination statistic is a real mark of progress. A cohort of young people, certainly during my teaching career, were leaving school without any qualifications. I do not want to underestimate the change that has happened in Scotland’s secondary schools, particularly in the past 10 years, to give a chance to young people who were often leaving school at the end of S4 without qualifications. The positive destination measure is really welcome.

We might come on to this, but I was listening to some of the exchanges on the radio last Thursday morning between Mr Briggs and the headteacher of the Gaelic school in Glasgow. She made the point that we need to look at the totality of measurements in relation to the achievements of those young people. It might not be the five-highers measurement that we all experienced when we were at school. The breadth of qualifications that our young people are now achieving is quite remarkable. There is learning in that for the Government, and we might come on to that in the question-and-answer session, but it is important that we recognise the totality of achievement.

In every school that I visit, almost weekly, the different pathways that are on offer and the school-college partnerships are transformative. They did not exist 10 years ago. SAC has fundamentally changed the way in which schools meet the needs of our learners. I accept that there is still a challenge. The poverty-related attainment gap needs to close. We are doing all that we can to work with local authorities on that, but I am happy to hear challenge from the committee today on that point, because it is important that we focus on where the difference can be made. Some of that will be expanded on in relation to the PEF sampling work. You raised that with me in the chamber during the stage 1 debate, convener, and I am keen to share details of that work with you.

That will be a matter for your constituents in 2026, convener.

The ACEL data are official statistics and are rigorously tested and assessed by our analysts. That is important.

That is when the ACEL data was introduced.

Which other measure—

The stretch aims that Ms Taylor talked about have been fundamental. When the Government looked at the nine challenge model and accepted that we would take the strategic equity fund approach for all local authorities, we attached that funding to a requirement for local authorities to report on their stretch aims. Mr Rennie and I have previously discussed the stretch aims, and perhaps his views in relation to ambition, but if the stretch aims were adhered to, we would close the poverty-related attainment gap by 30 per cent, I think, by the end of this session of the Parliament.

It is important to say that when we are talking about closing the poverty-related attainment gap, we are talking about actions at local level. That requires central Government, yes, but it also requires local governments—which are not here today—to adhere to the requirements that are set out in their stretch aims, which they have committed to working towards. I go back to Mr Rennie’s points about the data, which I hear he is not necessarily convinced about. I will bring in Mr Gregory in relation to his team’s work on the issue and the improvement that they have seen throughout the attainment challenge.