Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have been listening to the committee’s evidence on that with great interest. As Mr Adam will be well aware, some of the challenge in relation to the SQA and how it is perceived by teachers, parents and pupils dates way back to before the pandemic. In the previous parliamentary session, I sat on the other side of the committee table with some members who are still on the committee, and we debated a range of these issues. What happened during the pandemic undoubtedly crystallised the need for significant change, and I think that the way in which we are approaching that is really important.

It cannot be seen as a rebranding; it has to feel different. Over a number of years, teachers have been frustrated by some of their engagement with the SQA, and that situation has to get better. I have been really taken by the evidence that the committee has heard from School Leaders Scotland and the Educational Institute of Scotland that things have improved in the past year and that engagement is already looking and feeling different. That is part of the story. The bill crystallises the need for change.

It is important to set out that, fundamentally, we still need a qualifications body to deliver the exam diet. If you consider Professor Louise Hayward’s recommendations, you will see that at no point did she suggest that we get rid of all final examinations, although she did suggest that for national 5s. She looked at rationalising the delivery of qualifications and, in particular, at having an approach in Scotland that really looks at high-stakes final examinations. As I said, we still need a body that will deliver our qualifications system, but that body must look different and it must interact with people differently. To my mind, that is where a lot of the sense of frustration has come from.

The final point that I will make in response to your question is about rebuilding trust. The pandemic undoubtedly had an impact in eroding that trust. As the committee knows, particularly through the evidence sessions, I have been pretty pragmatic about that. I am of the view that having the new qualifications body is an imperative and that I cannot deliver on some of the aspirations in relation to Professor Hayward’s recommendations without the SQA really changing and becoming a new front-footed organisation that has the views of teachers, pupils and parents at its heart.

That is something that we need to look at. I do not want to take away from the points that Mr Rennie is making, but Clare Hicks is right to say that the financial realities that we are living in are a pressure. We need to be cognisant of that.

As for the challenge, I know that the committee has taken evidence on the matter, but as cabinet secretary, I have not received much correspondence about it. I have had representations from the accreditation team within the qualifications body, who have a very clear view. Colleagues around the table might have heard views from the professional trade union or from the SQA. Apart from representations from the SQA, however, I do not recall receiving representations on accreditation, in recent history. I might be wrong about that, but it is not an issue that has been routinely raised with me.

I am not directly familiar with the Welsh approach to accreditation, but officials might be. If Wales had five times the budget, that would intrigue me.

There is no direct role.

Those are very rare.

No. I do not think that if you change structures you change culture. You must do both. Part of that is about embedding learner and teacher voices in the organisation, which is a new approach. For example, we have looked to increase the number of teachers who are represented in the structure. It is really important that practising teachers are involved in the governance arrangements, because it will bring credibility to the organisation.

People are important, too. In my opening statement, I talked about the comment of a secondary headteacher coming into the organisation, which was quite deliberate. It sends a message to the wider education system that we trust Scotland’s teachers to deliver on the qualification improvements. I want teachers to be empowered to lead the change that we need. I have made that happen through the curriculum improvement approach, with the appointment of Andy Brown as the national maths specialist, who is a secondary headteacher and a maths teacher.

I want to replicate exactly the same approach in qualifications Scotland. Having a secondary headteacher with the knowledge and understanding of delivering qualifications in a secondary school is really important. We need to see more of that in how the new qualifications body works, so that we are using the expertise of the people who work in our classrooms at the chalkface every day to drive the improvements that we need.

For too long—I know that the committee has heard this, not just in recent weeks but in the previous session—it has felt as though the qualifications body has been distanced from the profession. We need to see that closer working, which is part of the reason why I brought in the secondary school headteacher, but I do not see that as an end point. We must continue to change and evolve the culture. Throughout the process, we are looking at how we can better embed the teacher voice and the learner voice. The setting up of committees is part of that, as is the new chair appointment that I alluded to in my response to Mr Kerr.

During the next five years, we will have established new governance structures through the committees that Clare Hicks spoke about. Embedding them in governance structures is important. Having their voices as part of the way in which the organisations—particularly qualifications Scotland—work will be hugely important to driving a difference.

Looking at practitioners from a teacher’s perspective, I think that the new qualifications body has to be more front footed in engaging with Scotland’s teachers. Many of the staff in the SQA have come from the classroom. Most of our markers are teachers, and they are involved in setting the national standard. We have to create new ways for teachers to be involved in the organisation. Part of that is about the secondary headteacher secondment that I spoke about. I envision an opportunity for Scotland’s teachers to engage with the organisation more directly. The governance arrangements will stipulate that qualifications Scotland should more front footed in engaging with teachers and listening to their views, which is important.

The organisation has to feel less defensive. At times, that has been a challenge. It has to work with Scotland’s teachers, our learners and their parents. It should be less about gatekeeping, as has been the perception of it, whether that is fair or otherwise, in the past.

I know the question that Mr Rennie is asking me, but we also need to be mindful that these are people’s jobs. The approach that we have taken in relation to qualifications Scotland is that people will be protected by the no compulsory redundancies policy. I hear the point that Mr Rennie is making.

I was quite taken with the evidence that the committee took on that, because I do not like the word “learner”. I think that it is really generic. We use it all the time in Scottish education because it is a bit of a catch-all term. I hear the view on that, and I am pretty sympathetic to it. I was discussing the issue with officials in advance of today’s evidence session, and I think that we will look at ways in which we might be able to better reflect it. “Learner” is a generic term, and we need to look at how we ensure that children’s voices are heard.

I am sympathetic to the point that Mr Mason makes, and we will reflect on that after the evidence session today to see what more we can do to strengthen that approach.

The member raises an interesting point. I am not against the suggestion. We will take that away and consider whether we can look again at the approach that we have adopted thus far on that issue.