Chamber and committees

On the face of it, Mr Greer’s point about getting it right is important. We have a new chair of the SQA, and Shirley Rogers will be key to driving some of the cultural change that the organisation needs. We need to change our ways of working, and part of that is about embedding teacher voice in the governance arrangements. We will do so through having teacher expertise on the board in a way that might not have been prescribed previously; I have been keen to set that out in relation to our governance expectations.

Clare Hicks may want to say more on the role of teacher voice in that regard. As we move to a new qualifications organisation, teacher voice has to inform, in particular, how qualifications are developed and delivered. To be fair to the SQA, classroom teachers and promoted teachers are currently involved in writing examinations and marking exam scripts, and delivering the qualifications. Nevertheless, with regard to the governance challenge, Mr Greer identifies an opportunity. In the draft governance arrangements that we have been considering, there will be an opportunity to embed teacher voice more, as well as the voice of learners.

I am not sure whether I will be able to give Mr Kerr a definitive list of outcomes, but a new qualifications agency—I refer to the point that I made to Mr Greer—must work better with the teaching profession. In my experience in school and on the committee, that was a major barrier, in many instances, to improving outcomes for our young people.

One of the best meetings that I have had recently—I think that I referred to this in the chamber in December—was with the Scottish Association of Geography Teachers. It came to me with a plan. It said that we do not need to throw out the whole qualification, and it suggested some changes that it thought would make the geography qualification more relevant. It talked me through it. I confess that I am not a geographer, but the suggestions that it put forward were eminently sensible. You could go to any professional association from any subject area in the secondary curriculum and get exactly the same feedback. In my experience, the missing link is that the profession is not as engaged as it should be in the development of the qualifications. To go back to Ken Muir’s report, those are the things that we need to fix in relation to the outcomes from the new qualifications organisation.

Of itself, as an organisation, or the qualifications?

The best intervention or investment that a Government can make is in a high-quality teaching workforce—that is why we have the best-paid teachers in the UK. We want to work with the profession to support teachers; therefore, I think that the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy made earlier this morning, on class contact, were spot on, and I support her in that endeavour. That does not mean that I do not have challenges in relation to my budget, but, as I hope she heard from me, I think that reducing class contact is part of how we can improve the learner journey through the education system, supporting the workforce who educate the pupils.

That relates to why I made an announcement about the centre for teaching excellence. I see some opportunity, through that model, to support the profession in their professional development. I gave the example earlier—I think to Michelle Thomson, but it might have been in response to another member—of the role of Education Scotland in the past in allowing someone to come out of school and then refresh their knowledge. We have moved away from that model; I want the centre for excellence to provide opportunities for staff, to promote professional learning and to encourage and embed the spirit of professionalism that is already in the teaching profession. We support young people by investing in teachers.

Undoubtedly. To be fair to the inspectorate side of Education Scotland, there is already a well developed associate inspector programme, which sees headteachers and senior leaders being seconded to take part in school inspections. For example, they might accompany an inspectorate team on a secondary school inspection, which is hugely important in informing policy and is also important for their own development.

Regarding Mr Greer’s point, when I was at Education Scotland, which is more than 10 years ago now, there were a number of people who might not have been in school for some time and who had not delivered curriculum for excellence. It is quite challenging to inspect a school if you have not yourself delivered the current qualifications.

There is a really important opportunity to give staff better professional development opportunities. I spoke about that when Mr Greer and I were both members of this committee. One of the best pieces of professional development that I undertook was to be an SQA marker for five years, because having an understanding of the national standard made me a better teacher. Not everyone has the opportunity to mark for the examining organisation. Teachers need to be let out of school, their headteacher needs to find cover and that can be challenging at a time when budgets are tight. We must think again about the opportunities that the qualifications body gives to the profession. That body is not just a service that runs qualifications; it must work better with the profession.

I was not in post during the pandemic, but I think that much of the frustration in the system came from that disconnect between the qualifications organisation and the profession. That did not come about only as a result of Covid; it had built up over many years.

I would like the debate to inform my response to the recommendations, and I want to ensure that I have heard all the ideas that Willie Rennie and his colleagues have.

As I said in my opening statement, when I was first appointed, I was struck first by the number of reports that landed on my desk in quick succession and then by the reality of what my former colleagues were experiencing in our classrooms. Some of that experience, including the changes in behaviour and attendance, has been raised in the chamber in recent months. Proponents of curriculum reform sometimes suggest that it can solve some or all of those challenges. I am not necessarily sure that I would accept that, but I think that there are opportunities to provide a more engaging curriculum.

Regarding evaluation, we are listening to and engaging with the profession. We engaged with 1,000 teachers towards the end of last year. We also asked local authorities to build in time during the in-service days in August, although some did it in October, to look at the changes proposed by the Hayward review and at the national discussion, which sometimes gets lost in the mix but did, in itself, set out a vision for reform. We will capture those views and ensure that they help to inform some of our thinking about the legislative changes that will be required for both bodies. The legislation is imminent, so I do not want to talk about the specifics of that, because it has not yet been laid before Parliament.

We have a generous offer in relation to student support. Some of the budget lines that the member spoke about were published by the Deputy First Minister in November, and they were taken as in-year savings. The member is right to say that those were demand-led budgets, so a number of savings were quantified by baked-in presumptions about uptake that, bluntly, was not there. We were able to identify savings through that process.

On student support, we have built into the budget an increase in higher education student support of £2,400 for all undergraduate students. An equivalent uplift will be applied to the postgraduate support package in the same year. That is raising student support for those who might be disadvantaged—for example, care leavers, estranged students and those from the socioeconomic areas that Liam Kerr spoke about earlier.

We will have to consider student support more broadly. It is worth saying that support and tuition fees are demand led. During 2023-24, £21.6 million of savings were identified due to reduced demand. Those savings are baked into this year’s financial allocation because they are both demand-led budgets and the demand was not there last year.

Good.

Just between us? I am not sure that is how it works.