Seòmar agus comataidhean

Could Mr Kerr explain what he means by “negative consequence”?

As Shirley-Anne Somerville set out last year, we would look at that on a case-by-case basis. I recognise that, right now, although we are talking about teacher numbers in the round, it is much easier to recruit teachers in Edinburgh than in the Highlands and Islands, for example. We need to be mindful of that and of subject variation, and we need to look at the issue on a case-by-case basis.

The education budget, like every budget in the Scottish Government, is not immune to the impacts of inflationary pressures. We need to be mindful of that.

We increased investment in the SAC programme from £750 million during the last parliamentary year to £1 billion during the course of this parliamentary year. In relation to the question that Pam Duncan-Glancy asked about four-year funding cycles, it is important to give headteachers certainty and to allow them to plan in relation to staffing. Knowing that there will be £520 million of pupil equity funding over four years gives them that certainty.

The additionality that we bring is also shown in the fact that, in Scotland, we spend more per pupil than any other part of the United Kingdom. Our spending per pupil was around £1,300—18 per cent—higher than in other parts of the UK.

We have also had to absorb some of the financial pressures that have surrounded the teachers’ pay deal. I think that the deal was the right thing to do, but I am mindful of its impact across the budget and on other parts of the Scottish Government.

We have the lowest pupil teacher ratio in the UK, and we have a good and strong story to tell about investment from the Government, but I acknowledge the impact that inflation has had in relation to erosion of spending power in the education and skills portfolio.

More broadly, across the Scottish Government there is less money to go round than there was previously. I am not going to make political points about that this morning, because it is important that we talk about the detail of educational outcomes, but we should be mindful that external factors relating to inflationary pressures are having an impact on funding for all cabinet secretaries and on how we have to cut the cake.

I will come back to the work on free school meals, because it is important, given that we are moving to universality in primary schools.

In relation to your first point, we know that we have been increasing our local government spend. Local authorities spent about £6.9 billion on education in Scotland. We need to be mindful of the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to education spend in addition to what is ring fenced from the Scottish Government. In comparison, the amount is relatively small. We have increased spending on education; there was a real-terms increase of 7.2 per cent in 2020-21.

It will be challenging to calculate PEF when free school meals become universal. That will involve us working with Social Security Scotland and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I will bring in Alison Taylor on that, because officials are currently working on the calculation, which will be challenging as we move forward and away from the measure that we currently use. We recognise that universality will necessitate use of a different measure.

Is the question about whether we should almost prioritise attendance over other interventions?

Last academic year, the SFC introduced a tolerance of 2 per cent in college credit targets. This year, it has introduced new flexibilities. I will continue to engage with the SFC, as will Mr Dey, in relation to the assessment of those flexibilities and how those allow our colleges to become more sustainable in the longer term, which is the challenge.

Yes, but that is why the teacher audit is the answer. It will give us the granular data at national level that we will need to plan for, say, the reduction in teacher class contact time, which I think is really important. We will need additional teachers in the system to deliver on that commitment, and we need to be mindful of what that will look like.

I am concerned by some of the evidence that the committee has heard on teacher numbers, because we could get to a position where it might be suggested that, if I just let go, everything would be okay. I go back to the position of the previous cabinet secretary last December. That was not the case then, and I would really worry about our moving away from that model.

However, the member has made an important point. In my experience, the number of teachers in a school is usually calculated on the basis of the population and the number of pupils in the school. If your school roll is increasing, you might, say, gain a depute, but those calculations are made at the local authority level.

I do not think that there are extra teachers floating around in the system, if that is what last week’s panel was suggesting. What I have seen from my experience in schools is that any additionality in the system is used to close the poverty-related attainment gap. As the member alluded to, that might come not in the form of classroom teachers, but in the form of attendance officers, health and wellbeing support or whatever.

I go back to the point that the audit of where we are nationally will give us a granular picture. There were some recent press reports—I am not looking at Mr Rennie—about the number of classes with more than 30 pupils, but my current pupil teacher ratio is extremely low. We need to look at how class sizes work at a local authority level, given that we have more teachers in the system now. I am sorry if I have presupposed your question, Mr Rennie.

There are inherent risks, but I go back to Shirley-Anne Somerville’s experience last December—the Government provided an extra £145 million, but there were fewer teachers to show for it. Trust is not a one-way street. When the Government provides that additionality, we will look to recoup it if it is not invested in teachers. Fundamentally, that is because we believe that good-quality learning and teaching is what makes the difference in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

I would like us to go back, in our parliamentary debates and more broadly in Scottish education, to our conversation about good-quality pedagogy and how it can make a difference in our schools. That is the silver bullet in all of this, but some of the recent discussion about closing the gap has moved us away from that. We need to go back to talking about the role of the teacher, the importance of good-quality learning and teaching and how that can raise attainment for all and close the gap.

On the practicalities of my recouping it?

As cabinet secretary, I have not discussed that with colleges. I suspect that Mr Dey has, as Minister for Higher and Further Education.

Mr Greer raises an important point about the accessibility of childcare and where that provision exists. If that is a bar to how people engage with their education or it prevents their engagement with it because there are no childcare facilities, that would really concern me.

I do not want to comment on the specifics of individual colleges making decisions about their estate—that is for them. More generally, however, the issue is challenging. I would be keen to pick that up with Mr Dey, although I think that he has been pursuing the matter with the college sector.

At this point, I will bring in Stephen Pathirana.