Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not accept that, Mr Rennie. I go back to the point that I made in relation to the data being informed by teacher judgment. Prior to the Government introducing the ACEL data measurement, there was no way for us to track, nationally, the progress that was being made in our primary schools. The introduction of that measurement has been central to providing us with a data set and a measurement at the national level, so that we can track the progress about which Mr Rennie speaks. For example, in numeracy, a record 80.3 per cent of pupils in P1, P4 and P7 have reached expected levels, while S3 pupils reached a new high of 90.3 per cent. In literacy, achievement is also at a record high in both primary and secondary. I might bring in David Gregory, for an Education Scotland perspective on the rigour of the challenge. Mr Rennie and I could have a political debate about it, but let me pass to a member of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, who might be able to give his views.

Mr Adam makes a good point. The school that I alluded to in my opening remarks—Braes high school in Falkirk—was one of the first schools that I visited as cabinet secretary. I was really struck by what they are doing. They had a “Take what you want” trolley and provision for the school prom, which many schools have. Many headteachers in our schools are using PEF to provide food and clothing. I do not think that they should have to do that, but they are having to make those choices because needs are not being met by the welfare state elsewhere. The power of PEF and SAC in their totality has been eroded by the implications of other policies, which is harming the impact that those funds should be having. That said, PEF is making a real difference.

I spoke about a primary school in Kirkcaldy in my opening remarks, where the headteacher is doing a lot of good work with a group of pupils with additional support needs. The convener took part in a debate on that last night. She is using her PEF money to employ an extra teacher, who is working with small groups of young people with identified additional support needs to give them time out of class and the extra support that they need. Across the country, PEF is being used to employ about 3,000 extra people, of whom 1,000 are teachers. The fund is being used in a lot of creative ways. That was a welcome reflection in the committee’s report in 2022, but we need to be mindful of external factors, because they have undoubtedly diluted the power, strength and impact that the funding was intended to have when it was introduced.

No, I cannot do that by using PEF as a measurement. I will see whether we can ascertain that. Across the country, 3,000 staff are employed using PEF; approximately 1,000 of them are teachers.

Does that question relate to PEF or to the attainment challenge?

It is hugely important that we create permanent contracts, and local authorities were given extra money in the budget to allow them to do that. I observe that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s party abstained on the budget.

Yes.

They are the same.

It is worth our while to reflect that there is still significant investment, although I accept the member’s point.

There is £1 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge, which includes the £130 million per year in pupil equity funding that goes directly to headteachers and the £43 million that goes to local authorities to undertake strategic approaches—the strategic equity fund, in essence. There has not been a reduction, I should say, to that £43 million for SEF.

Reflecting on the totality of investment from the Government in education more broadly, I note that our funding in Scotland by far outstrips that in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report that was published during the February recess said that, per head, we now spend more than £10,000 per pupil. Some reports say that the gap between us and other parts of the UK could be as high as 20 per cent in real terms.

I therefore note, while accepting the premise of the member’s point, that we are spending far more on our education system in Scotland.

I go back to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point on schools in particular. If we can get the data arrangement with the DWP in place, that will help our intelligence with regard to how we target that support.

That is the point that I tried to make in my answer to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point. I do not think that we are gathering the totality of qualifications through the NIF, but we are doing that via the stretch aims. There is therefore a disconnect in how that is portrayed. We are looking at ways in which we can move that, and that work is very much supported by Scotland’s secondary headteachers. Our measurement is a bit out of date in relation to capturing that totality; it is quite traditional in using the narrow measurement. I made that point to Ms Duncan-Glancy in discussing leavers’ qualifications. We are not telling the full story there, but we are doing that via the stretch aims. There is an opportunity for us to reset that through the NIF.

I hand over to David Leng to talk about the technical detail behind how we do that, because it has not been without challenge.