Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee has to support decision making, and it has to support better decision making in the interests of learners or young people—whatever term we want to use to differentiate them. It is hugely important that the new approach to governance informs better decisions for young people and learners across the piece.

I am sure that it would.

The charters have to be co-designed with those groups, though, so I do not think that qualifications Scotland will get to dictate the level of ambition.

Is the member concerned that qualifications Scotland would seek to stymie the level of ambition?

A range of consequences flow from the charters. First of all, they provide the new accountability framework that we have talked about, but a level of scrutiny will come with them, too. That scrutiny will come from Parliament and the public, but ministers will also have a role in ensuring that the charters deliver on expectations.

The member mentioned parental involvement. In response to a previous question, I spoke about the role of parents on both of the interest committees and our expectations with regard to the policy memorandum. We can, perhaps, look at strengthening some of that, too.

The charters are really about scrutinising qualifications Scotland’s adherence to what stakeholders, whoever they may be, have been telling it and ensuring that it addresses and drives forward any required changes and that, as a result, it is not tokenistic. That is, I suppose, a challenge on which the committee has heard a range of views—that is, how we ensure that the governance structures drive meaningful change in practice. After all, a bill—a piece of legislation—is not necessarily going to drive the type of meaningful change that we need in that organisation. Changing some of the governance structures is key, and I think that that is the point that the member is making.

Many of the considerations on accreditation pre-date my time in office, but I know that a range of proposals were considered at the time—moving accreditation to the SCQF was one. There were other proposals on moving it out of the body completely or creating a new one. I do not think that we are in the financial market for creating new bodies, at the current time. However, for example, consideration was given to the Scottish Funding Council doing accreditation, moving it to the new inspectorate or to Education Scotland, or moving it within qualifications Scotland with increased separation.

On the point that Mr Kerr made at the start, we have to be mindful of wider education reform work. I am aware that next door to my office is Mr Dey, who is leading on all the post-school reform work. Accreditation affects him, too. I am taking forward the bill in this parliamentary year and Mr Dey will be working on reform of post-school education next year. The work on accreditation cuts across both, so it is really important that we get our approach right. The committee heard evidence from Fiona Robertson on that. She is exploring that aspect through our short-life working group, which is considering the role of quality assurance across education and in our qualifications system.

Clare, do you want to come in on that?

I will not add to that, but Mr Rennie might want to come back in.

It is. That degree of flexibility is already happening. As the committee might be aware, Janie McManus’s team is currently leading on work to inspect the improvement function of our local authorities. I have a concern that, in some parts of Scotland, there might not be the support that should exist. Ms McManus is leading on that work, and it is really important. Now that we are recovering from the pandemic, we are looking at the post-pandemic attainment gap and all the challenges that exist in schools, and I need to be sure that our local authorities have the mechanisms in place to help to support our schools. That is not about inspecting establishments—it is about inspecting local authorities’ improvement functions.

I think that the committee also heard evidence from Graham Donaldson on initial teacher education. The inspectorate has the power to inspect that, but it has never been used. However, I am interested in that because, although we do not often debate initial teacher education in the chamber—it does not get the parliamentary coverage that it should—it is integral to delivering quality learning and teaching.

The inspectorate is also carrying out a thematic review of behaviour in Scotland’s schools and a thematic view of maths in relation to numeracy across the curriculum. It does not always narrowly examine institutions through school reports; it can also look across the piece at a range of issues. It is already undertaking that work, and I foresee that being the case in the future, too.

If committee members are of the view that we should stipulate that, I am open to listening to that, but the policy memorandum gives us a bit of—

I have heard some of the teaching trade unions’ views on that issue. It is worth saying that we have increased the number of teachers to four teaching and college professionals. We reflected and wanted to make sure that there was substantive teacher voice in the new body. It is important that we listen to other stakeholders, as Mr Adam set out. Scottish education is always about partnership working, and parents are a key component of that, so it is important that their voice is heard, too.

The trade unions’ view is that we have stipulated four members, and that that does not stipulate a majority. However, it is not as though we have said, “This is the maximum and there cannot be any more.” Others who come from a teaching background may have experience in corporate governance and fulfil other positions on that body. There are still opportunities for teachers to engage outwith the four that we have stipulated.