Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the broad thrust of your answers. A lot of the additional and unnecessary workload—in particular, the bureaucratic workload—is being driven by local authorities, but not all of it is. There are some areas where it is driven by the Government, and there are some areas where local authorities are only able to add on all that bureaucracy because of a particular Government initiative.

I will use as an example the Scottish national standardised assessments, which is a very politicised matter. There is a parliamentary majority against primary 1 SNSAs. In a vote in the previous session of Parliament, Parliament decided that there should not be a continuation of primary 1 SNSAs, yet the Government has continued them. When I speak to teachers, they give me examples of the unnecessary bureaucracy that they have to deal with, and SNSAs come up a lot. That is not because the test is, in and of itself, particularly time consuming—although the cabinet secretary will be aware of my position that it does not add much value and causes a lot of stress and anxiety—but because of the bureaucracy that schools and local authorities add on top of that. A number of local authorities have bolted on significant additional reporting requirements to SNSAs. Will you reflect on that?

As much as a lot of the bureaucracy is driven by local authorities, there are many examples where they would not be able to do that if it was not for a particular Government policy. In the case of primary 1 standardised testing, Parliament told the Government to stop, yet it has continued with those tests.

The solution is more prescription for education authorities and more professional autonomy for individual teachers and schools. The cabinet secretary will be aware that I submitted to the Government a paper that I commissioned Dr Joseph Smith and Professor Mark Priestley to write. In essence, it involved a series of focus groups and some research work with teachers on their suggestions for how to reduce their workload, specifically in relation to bureaucracy. I submitted that to the Government nearly two years ago. Has the Government reflected on it? Will there be a response to it, or will the Government in some other way reflect on the feedback from teachers who have provided specific examples of areas where their bureaucratic workload can be reduced?

That all sounds good, but my frustration is that there is a lot of talk about work that we need to do or will continue doing. The cabinet secretary has just reflected on the fact that she was sitting at this table talking about this almost a decade ago with me, Liz Smith and others, and that it was an issue before then, when she was a teacher. Why is it such a perennial issue?

It is ultimately resource constraint that underlies a lot of the issues that we talk about, such as additional support needs or the need for schools to have administrative support staff. However, a lot of the issues about the bureaucratic element of teachers’ workloads either have no-cost solutions or would generate savings if the workload was reduced. I accept that some of that would involve national Government being far more prescriptive to local government than it currently is—and doing so in a way that would cause a lot of tension.

However, without getting into the specifics of that, I cannot understand the lack of priority that is given to reducing teacher workload, particularly given that it is essentially a no-cost area of work that would generate good will among teachers as well as leading to improvements in the quality of learning and teaching.

You say that there is a clear focus on that, but you accepted my opening premise, which was that teacher workload has not got any easier in the past 10 years and that the bureaucracy around it has not reduced in those years. If there is a focus on that, why are things not improving?

I am afraid that my questions are probably all for the cabinet secretary. I will start by asking about teacher workload.

It is about a decade since a real drive was made to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for teachers. That was just before the cabinet secretary and I were elected to Parliament and it overlaps with that period. Cabinet secretary, you directly experienced that bureaucracy as a teacher before you came here. We can all point to examples of specific areas in which bureaucracy has been removed, but every teacher that I speak to and every union that represents them says that, overall, the bureaucracy issue has got worse over the past decade. Do you agree with that? Is there too much bureaucracy for classroom teachers and those in management positions?

That is great. I appreciate that.

I entirely agree with that point. I would like to ask about some other issues, including school psychologists, but I am conscious of the time. I am happy to come back to those at the end of the meeting if there is time.

I would like to stick with the property questions. Professor Mathieson, you have mentioned that there is an assessment of the university’s property portfolio going on. Could you give us a bit of detail on that? Given that there is significant distress among your workforce at the moment about the potential redundancies, it would be useful to know how the assessment of the property portfolio fits in with wider cost-saving measures. Are you expecting a report to go to the university court some time soon with an assessment of the portfolio and what assets might be disposed of? Could you give us a little bit more detail on how that aspect of it is being assessed?

No, but it can be a piece of the puzzle. There is no single solution. Actually, the single solution to solving your problem in one go would be to make a vast number of your staff redundant, but I suggest that would have significant negative consequences. Given that, and given my suggestion that no stone should be left unturned, are you making an assessment of all your assets, not just your property portfolio?

Is that an active consideration?