Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that committee members have refreshed themselves with the publication of an article that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement yesterday.

Which part of the report do you not agree with, Mr Ross?

We need to look at the outcome of this year’s examination results for higher history, which is that the pass rate dropped by 13 per cent. Notable drops in the pass rate happen every year, and in a range of subject areas. Fiona Robertson can provide detail on other areas in which that has happened. It is the responsibility of the SQA, first of all, to consider complaints, which is what it has done. It has conducted an investigation—I am not going to talk to the detail and methodology of it, as it is quite right that the SQA does that. Its report was independently peer reviewed by the director the Welsh qualifications authority—I am sure that we will come on to that.

No, I did not instruct the review.

Yes.

You asked whether I had instructed the review itself. I did not, and the chief examiner can answer for herself on that point. I met with the chief examiner on three occasions during the review because I was concerned. I was concerned because, as members around the table know, I was receiving the same correspondence as other MSPs were receiving. Therefore, I was concerned at the outset and I wanted to understand what had happened.

We can talk about variation in the round. Variation in pass marks happens every year, and it happens in a variety of subjects. However, what I was hearing from the profession and from some parents was that there was an issue specifically with higher history and paper 2 this year, and I wanted to be absolutely certain that that was not the case. It is quite right that the SQA investigated the matter. You asked about the SQA using its own staff to do that investigation. The staff you are talking about are practising teachers, many of whom are markers for the SQA—

Is the point that you are making that they therefore cannot be objective?

I discussed that with the chief executive of the GTCS very recently—I think that it was last week or the week before—and I have agreed to meet Disclosure Scotland to discuss it. If it would be helpful, I could write to update the committee on that, because I share the concern that has been raised.

That relates to the point that I made previously about the perception—real or otherwise—that joining the inspectorate with Education Scotland was not good for independence or accountability. Separating the role and legislating for the post gives it objectivity and clarifies roles and accountability for improvement. That is a pretty significant shift.

I was also quite taken by some of the evidence that the committee had from Fife Council—it might have been written evidence—about there being a gap in the system, in that without the annual reports that the chief inspector would have published previously, local authorities do not necessarily have national guidance on their improvement priorities such as used to exist in the system. It is important that we bring that back.

I was also quite taken by evidence that the committee heard from Professor Graham Donaldson, who essentially talked about the challenges in the system just now, and how the role of inspection is meant to address them—it is meant to flag up areas of concern.

Let us take attendance and behaviour: those issues should have been known about and flagged up through inspection reports. There is a wider challenge. It is not necessarily about the legislation but about the purpose of inspection, which is why Janie McManus, the interim chief inspector, is carrying out a review of the inspection framework to ensure that our inspection reports are challenging the system robustly and giving it support where it is needed, and that they are flagging up to the Scottish Government, and to me as cabinet secretary, where the challenges are in the system.

This time last year, we had a range of debates on behaviour. Throughout that time, from the Government’s perspective, the evidence base was quite reliant on the “Behaviour in Scottish Schools 2023” research that was published last November. The most recent report before that was undertaken in 2016, so there was a gap. In that time, I would have expected that inspection reports would have provided challenge and advice to ministers, but that is not necessarily captured in how we currently inspect schools. I suppose that there is a wider question about whether our inspection reports are asking the right things. That is why Janie McManus’s work on the framework is really important.

To go back to Mr Kidd’s original question, legislating to create the post sends a message to the system that we have an independent and impartial chief inspector who will challenge me, as cabinet secretary, and will challenge local authorities, which have the statutory responsibility for education.

The process is very technical. It is also quite unique because, although the post of chief inspector existed previously, it was not legislated for. I am therefore required to complete the process under section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998. We need to work with the United Kingdom Government on that, because it is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We propose that that will be done via a section 104 order, so I need to write to and engage on that with the Secretary of State for Education and with other devolved Administrations. The order is being prepared, alongside passage of the bill, in order to have it ready to be laid in Westminster after the act receives royal assent. We expect completion of the bill process to be in the summer, which will allow the chief inspector’s office to be operational by autumn next year.