Seòmar agus comataidhean

May I ask a question? My apologies, convener—I realise that I am here to be questioned.

Is the member talking about young people who are aged 15 who are not able to access a subject of their choice in school, for example?

I am not going to announce today a review of how we measure positive destinations, but I take the member’s point. SDS carries out the tracking for us in that regard. We track the longer-term trajectory of young people when they leave school, at intervals of three months and then nine months.

It might interest Mr Briggs to look at the data set from three months out then nine months out. There is a disconnect—we accept that. Beyond school, there are things that can be undertaken by Government, but other agencies are often involved in the delivery of support to a young person in that period of their life.

We also introduced the annual participation measure as part of the national improvement framework. That gives us a greater ability to measure the number of 16 to 19-year-olds who are in school, or perhaps at college or university, and gives us a truer picture of their progress across time.

There has been a slight increase, of 0.8 per cent, in participation between 2023 and 2024 for those in quintile 1—that is, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. In 2024, there was an 8.2 per cent gap in participation by 16 to 19-year-olds living in the 20 per cent most deprived and 20 per cent least deprived areas; that is the narrowest gap on record.

I take the member’s point, and it might be that some of his suggestions in relation to positive destinations are looked at in the round as part of the education reform that is more in Mr Dey’s space. Nevertheless, I will take that away from today’s meeting, convener. The member raises an important point, which has been rehearsed in the chamber previously.

Nonetheless, I go back, in the round, to my original response to Mr Rennie—which I know that he does not like—that 95.7 per cent of our young people are now in a positive destination. That is to be welcomed and celebrated. These young people were being let down by the education system before we started giving them that extra support, tracking, advice and encouragement. I think that we have completely turned around the way in which we support some young people.

To reiterate David Gregory’s point, not so long ago, in terms of tracking, it was university or nothing after school—there was maybe a job, or college, but there was often a gap. We have become far better at tracking that progress across time. We can undoubtedly improve—I accept that. I think that that is the point that the member makes.

However, I go back to the comments from Gillian Campbell-Thow, the headteacher who was on the radio with Mr Briggs. I confess that a colleague tipped me off to that interview: I do not routinely sit listening to the radio waiting for Mr Briggs to come on. Gillian Campbell-Thow said in response to Mr Briggs last week that

“We need to look at the currency of these qualifications before we start saying that you’ll be doing a disservice to children in having 15 per cent of all school leavers leave without anything.”

Her point was really about looking at the totality of achievements.

I think—I have reflected on this with officials—that some of our measurements are not showing the totality of the picture of the achievements of all our young people.

Do you mean tomorrow’s meeting?

We will take that away, convener.

Potentially, but I must be very careful, convener, because of the rules on ONS classification in relation to direct support. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to say any more until we have received the advice from the SFC.

We see that even when extrapolating poverty.

Mr Brown is a former cabinet secretary in this Government, and he knows that the Government is a fan of targets. There are good reasons for having targets; it is important that we show the public that we are working to improve public services.

I go back to some of the thinking around closing the poverty-related attainment gap. There was broad support for the target at the time. It was a momentous shift in how we funded our schools to have funding from central Government that was protected. There is a challenge in that, because, to respond to Mr Brown’s question, this is about accountability. I am here, and I am accountable, ultimately, to the Parliament and to the committee, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is not here, and I cannot deliver on closing the poverty-related attainment gap if local authorities are not at the table.

That is why our change—from the nine challenge authorities to the strategic model—really tied local authorities in with regard to their stretch aims. We had to tie our funding to a requirement that local authorities were going to sign up to the stretch aims. It is fair to say that that was not without challenge across the piece. Officials had to work with local authorities to get them to agree to deliver in order to provide the accountability on the ground that Mr Brown’s point was about, which is what really makes the difference.

As education secretary, I am often reminded that I do not have much power, but we have a partnership approach to the delivery of education in Scotland, which empowers local authorities to run education departments. However, we also need them to deliver on the Government’s objectives, and that must be done in partnership. The stretch aims have been really helpful in unlocking some of the progress that has been made. I want to put on the record my thanks to Dave Gregory and his team. They have been working at the national level with 30 attainment advisers and working individually with local authorities to provide support, which has also been key.

There will always be debates about accountability in education, because there will always be a degree of friction between the aspirations of central Government, which is ultimately accountable, and the reality of delivery on the ground, which can sometimes detract from the policy ambition.

As I understand it, it is exactly the same. The purpose of that confirmation is to give reassurance. I do not know whether you have experienced this, but on my visits to schools, I have met headteachers who were anxious about that funding coming to an end. Therefore, I wanted to give them certainty.

As I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy, what that looks like will, quite rightly, be a decision for the next Government. However, in order to give headteachers that bridging support, it was important that we confirmed that extension beyond next financial year.

Yes. We have been working to support them. The decisions around those changes pre-date my time in office, so I might lean into officials, in a moment.

However, if we go back to the committee’s recommendations in 2022, there was an acceptance at that time that poverty exists in all local authorities, and an acceptance that the move to that model—which was welcomed by many—seemed to be fairer.

We have worked with those local authorities, particularly in relation to the tapering of the funding. I will bring in officials to talk about what that support has looked like and how we have given that additionality.