Seòmar agus comataidhean

In answer to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s question, I said that I would look at the merits of every local authority’s position in detail.

As I understand it, that reduction relates to a demand-led budget line in the main. It is to do with initial teacher education places that were not filled—there was an oversupply of places this year. That calculation is set out by the SFC, I think. That is where that reduction has come from, so there should not be an adverse impact in that regard. Those places were simply not filled.

That showed that most pupils were enjoying being back at school and the stability that it brought, which was heartening to see.

We want our young people to enjoy coming to school, and we do not want them to be anxious about going out into the world without those supports. It is a responsibility for all of us. Teachers should—and do—support their young people in relation to their wellbeing, but, more broadly, we need to consider anxiety in our response to changes to behaviour and how we can offer better support.

I do not know whether Clare wants to say more on that.

Do you mean the current model?

He did bring a spreadsheet. I think that he was a friend of Iain Gray, so I was suspicious of him. [Laughter.] Anyway, I will set that aside.

At that point in 2018-19, we already had the evidence that talked about the number of subjects reducing in S4, the counter-argument to which would be that we now have a broader curriculum up to the end of S3. I will go back to the point that I made to Willie Rennie, who asked me what was wrong with Scottish education. Nothing is wrong with it, and we have a strong education system, but we did not fix the break between the BGE and the senior phase. That is part of the challenge in relation to course choice, because it is about practical delivery. Therefore, in my response to Professor Hayward’s review, I am thinking very carefully about how that will work in schools.

When Ms Maguire and I were at school, pupils would sit maybe seven or eight standard grades. In some schools, pupils would sit nine, but, across the country, the number was in the region of seven or eight. Now, you could walk into a school down the road and pupils might be sitting for five qualifications, but another school might have adhered to the traditional two-plus-two-plus-two model and not have moved much away from the theory of thinking about the curriculum, because that school wants to stick to the point, which Ms Maguire made, about performativity and believes that that is the best way to deliver results for our young people. There is a challenge in that, which goes back to the points that I made about whether we have a prescriptive curriculum with regard to entitlements.

However, I think that part of the response to curriculum changes and updating and responding to some of the curriculum improvement cycle work has to address the gap between the BGE and the senior phase. If I can be really niche-orientated, given that I had to write a timetable in a previous life, the hours that the SQA currently ascribes to national qualifications mean that schools cannot timetable more than—I think, but Mr Greer will keep me right—five subjects in S4 unless they start the delivery of the national qualifications in S3, which breaks the BGE. We need to have an answer to that.

Most schools start to deliver their national qualification subjects a bit earlier, in S3, to account for the delivery associated with the qualification. However, our new qualifications organisation must talk to the folk who write timetables in schools. In the past, there has been a disconnect—never the two shall meet. We need to think about the practicalities. If we unpick the qualifications, those are the things to which teachers will be responding. On Ms Maguire’s point about S4 entries, that is how we try to provide a bit more equality across the provision. That relates to Professor Hayward’s challenge around entitlements.

Through reform, there is the opportunity to fix some of the challenges in the system without necessarily unpicking all of it. That will involve fixing where we get to between the broad general education and the implementation of the senior phase. There are lots of ways in which we can avoid the two-term dash, as it is often referred to. We can deliver qualifications across two years, as many schools already do because they think that that delivers better outcomes for their young people. That will move us away from a system that involves three years of exams. As the committee will know, because it will have taken evidence on this, we like a test in Scotland. There is an argument that we need to broaden what constitutes assessment and how we measure outcomes for young people.

I was not in post in 2014.

We need to complete the evaluation once we have completed the roll-out to primary 7. I do not want to prejudge at committee whether it will deliver on all your expectations, Mr Macpherson. I would be supportive of what you suggest, but I do not want us to decide before we have rolled out the full programme how we will evaluate it. However, you are right.

The point on childhood obesity is interesting. As Alison Taylor mentioned, there is limited evidence on that, but there is some evidence that free school meals can help to reduce childhood obesity, which is an additional challenge. It is important for us to consider more broadly that the investment is not just an educational one but a health investment.

That is the measure that we have used for allocations for a number of years. We have, in the past, used it in relation to eligibility for other things as well. In the future, given that we are moving towards universality at primary school level, we will have to consider a different model. Universality necessitates a shift away from it. I am not going to argue about whether it is the best way to measure it. It is the measure that we have used, but we will have to use a different one in the future. The approach will look different because of the universal approach in primary schools.

Good morning. I am delighted to be here in my first appearance as cabinet secretary at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I thank you for the invitation—it is nice to be back, although I am sitting in a different chair from when I was last at the committee.

I look forward very much to working constructively with members of the committee. I have met Opposition leads over the past few months, and I look forward to continued engagement with the committee.

I will start by stating the obvious. Some, although not all, of our schools are closed today as a result of industrial action. Although the workers who are involved are local government employees and it is not an education dispute, it would be remiss of me not to mention the impact that school closures have already had, and continue to have, on education this week. Although I respect the fact that the matter remains a negotiation between local authorities and unions, I recognise that the people who are involved are continuing negotiations in the hope that a resolution can be found swiftly. Although I am not involved in negotiations, I have been working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that disruption to learning and teaching as a result of industrial action is minimised.

The clear expectation from the Scottish Government and COSLA is that schools will be closed only when it is safe or practicable not to open them. The educational needs of our young people must continue to be met locally, where our schools are closed.

I am grateful to the committee for its inquiry into the Scottish attainment challenge and the comprehensive report that it published in August last year. The Government’s response was equally comprehensive, and we share a focus on improving outcomes for children and young people who are experiencing poverty.

Progress is being made. The poverty-related attainment gap remains narrower than it was pre-pandemic for national 5s, highers and advanced highers. We have seen good progress in primary school literacy and numeracy, and a record low gap in respect of positive destinations for school leavers nine months after leaving school.

All of that, along with the ambitious aims that local authorities have set and are setting for the longer term, gives me confidence that our £1 billion investment in the Scottish attainment challenge is having an impact.

At the same time, we all acknowledge the impacts of the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, which have deepened inequality.

The Government is maintaining our commitment to a relentless focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap and on working closely with our councils, while recognising their responsibilities.

I understand that the committee would welcome an update on the relationships and behaviour summits. In June, I convened a headteachers task force to consider school exclusions. As I explained in my letter to the committee in August, there are multiple strands to the summits, with events in September, October and November. That ensures engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and enables the summit process to be informed by the evidence from the behaviour in Scottish schools research, which we will publish in November. I chaired the summit in September on recording and monitoring incidents in schools, and I look forward to engaging in future summits. To that end, I will continue to keep the committee updated.

There is much to be positive about in Scottish education. We have the lowest pupil teacher ratio, the highest spend per pupil and the best-paid teachers in the United Kingdom. We continue to celebrate and support free tuition in higher education, and this year’s exam results have shown continued progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

There are always opportunities to improve—I accept that—but the way in which we, as politicians, engage with the substantive issues of the day in education is, arguably, not like our engagement with any other policy area in Government. As the committee will know, I was a teacher before I was a politician, and the actions that I take as cabinet secretary will undoubtedly be informed by my experience at the chalkface.

I believe that this committee has one of the most important roles in the Scottish Parliament—not only in holding the Government to account, but in driving the improvements that we need in our education system. That is what will improve outcomes for our young people, so I am committed to working with the committee on that endeavour.

I thank you for having me along this morning, convener. I am happy to take any questions.

This situation is different. The way in which teachers are paid is different from how those in our college sector are paid. The Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers has a key role to play in the tripartite arrangements on teachers’ pay. The college sector has always been different. If Mr Rennie’s argument is that we should establish an SNCT approach to the college sector, I would like to hear it. There would be real challenges in doing so.

The challenges in the college sector predate my time in office and go back a number of years. It is important that we work with our trade union partners on establishing positive working relationships. I recently met representatives of the Educational Institute of Scotland and I have also met those from College Employers Scotland. I know that Mr Dey continues to engage with our trade unions.

I recognise the concern here, but it is important that we get to a settlement. That is a matter for College Employers Scotland to deliver on; it is not for ministers to intervene in.