Official Report 939KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on mobile phones and behaviour and relationships in school. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
16:48
I am pleased to update Parliament on the Scottish Government’s new guidance on mobile phones in schools and on our joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I know that the topic is of great interest to colleagues from across the chamber and to their constituents.
When we debated the topic back in March, I said that we are all striving for our schools and classrooms to be free from violence and disruption so that our young people can learn and our teaching staff can work safely. In recognition of that shared aspiration, in April, I had a constructive meeting with education spokespeople from Opposition parties to discuss our work on relationships and behaviour and to provide them with the opportunity to feed in their priorities to the action plan.
I begin by reminding colleagues of the key findings of the behaviour in Scottish schools research that we published in November last year. That externally commissioned research involved almost 4,000 school staff across Scotland and provides a nationally representative picture of what is happening in our schools. Although there will be local variations, it provides robust evidence on which to base the action plan and guidance on mobile phones.
What BISSR shows—a key point that we should not lose sight of—is that most children and young people are generally well behaved in class and around school. However, I accept that that research also tells us, as does the evidence that has been gathered by our teaching unions and has come through the series of relationships and behaviour summits that I chaired last year, that behaviour is absolutely not where it should be and that, post-pandemic, things have become much more challenging in our classrooms, for a range of reasons. With that in mind, I wish to begin with the development of the refreshed guidance on mobile phone use.
Recently, I have been reading “The Anxious Generation”, by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, which highlights the broad impact on young people of increased access to smartphones, screens and social media. The impacts that he highlights—such as poor mental health, addiction, and sleep deprivation—are all factors that impact on young people’s readiness to learn. It is clear from BISSR but also from the programme for international student assessment that mobile phones are having a substantial impact in our classrooms, disrupting learning and often causing conflict.
When I launched the mobile phone guidance at Stonelaw high school in Rutherglen last month, I heard directly from pupils and staff about the impact of mobile phones on their day-to-day classroom experience. Before the summer, nearly 700 pupils monitored and mined their own screen time during one period of personal and social education. Some of their teachers also took part in the exercise. Pupils and teachers alike were shocked by the results. On average, each pupil received 18 notifications during that one-hour lesson. Multiply that by the number of pupils in a class, and we can see how much disruption is caused to pupils’ concentration.
Members will know that, as cabinet secretary, I do not currently have the power to ban mobile phones. However, the updated national guidance goes as far towards a national ban as I am currently able to go, by setting out the Government’s clear support for whole-school bans. Our headteachers are empowered to take the steps that they consider appropriate to create an environment that is free from the disruption that is caused by mobile phones—an environment in which pupils are better able to focus on their learning and actively listen to one another, and which supports positive relationships between peers and with staff. If such an environment is best created by banning phones in the entirety of the school estate and for the entirety of the school day, the guidance supports such a decision.
Headteachers know their schools best, and the guidance provides them with the flexibility that works for them and their local context. At Stonelaw, for example, following engagement with pupils, parents and staff, the school has prohibited mobile phones in learning and teaching areas during learning and teaching time. That protects the learning environment while respecting the personal time of children and young people during breaks. When I spoke to the staff and pupils, I heard that they appreciated the school taking that balanced approach. They spoke about the trust placed in pupils through allowing the continued use of mobile phones in certain areas and at certain times. The privilege that was given to them by their teachers was not something that pupils wanted to abuse. Fundamentally, they recognised that, for them, a successful approach required a bit of give and take, and the adoption of a collaborative approach helped everyone to approach the changes positively.
I turn now to the joint action plan on relationships and behaviour, which I also launched during my visit to Stonelaw. As I have done every time that I have spoken on this topic in the chamber, I reiterate that our schools should be safe and consistent learning environments for all pupils and staff. However, from the engagement that I have undertaken over the past year, it has been clear that relationships and behaviour in our schools have changed since the pandemic. Although discussions in the chamber have often focused on increases in violence and aggression, we have also heard that the challenges are far more wide ranging and complex.
Schools are dealing with a wide variety of challenges that they would not have faced five or 10 years ago. Those include children and young people who are much less mature than expected, with difficulties communicating their emotions and navigating social dynamics; many who struggle with their mental health, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic and the stress that has been caused by the cost-of-living crisis; the rise of right-wing influencers, which has an impact on the prevalence of misogyny towards pupils and staff; and, as I have said, the prevalence of mobile phones, which disrupt learning and teaching.
The behaviour action plan is therefore ambitious in responding to that wide variety of concerns. It contains 20 overarching actions under eight themes that we will take forward over the next three years. These actions address not only violence but the breadth of areas identified as being priorities, including consequences; recording and monitoring; children and young people’s wellbeing; attendance; and empowering staff to reinforce positive relationships and behaviour. The plan balances setting clear national direction through the provision of guidance and developing capacity through enhanced practical guidance and support for local authorities and schools delivered by organisations such as Education Scotland.
Importantly, the plan is jointly owned by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, given that the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education rests with our councils. The plan has been developed in collaboration with the Scottish advisory group for relationships and behaviour in schools—SAGRABIS—which includes COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Education Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NASUWT, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, the Association of Heads and Deputes in Scotland, School Leaders Scotland, Unison, the Scottish Council of Deans of Education, educational psychologists, respectme and parents representatives.
The value of the plan having been developed by SAGRABIS and all the partners I just mentioned is that all the partners who have a role in implementing the plan have also helped to shape the priorities and actions within it. SAGRABIS will monitor the implementation of the plan over the next three years and will adjust it as necessary in light of any emerging issues, including those that are brought to us by the teaching profession.
I want to acknowledge the frustration that some colleagues have felt about how long it has taken to publish the action plan. I had intended to publish it before the summer but, having considered the advice on activity during the United Kingdom Parliament pre-election period, I took the decision to launch as soon as possible in the new school term.
I want to provide reassurance to colleagues that, while we have been developing the plan, we have continued to implement action to support schools and their staff. The new mobile phone guidance is an example of that, but it does not stand on its own. Rather, it supplements the suite of support that has been announced since last November, including new funding for training of support staff in direct response to findings of the behaviour in Scottish schools research that staff would welcome such training; new guidance on preventing and responding to gender-based violence in schools to address emerging trends surrounding misogyny; additional data and support to improve attendance, including guidance on professional learning, networking and exemplification launched by Education Scotland last week; and support spearheaded by our new interim chief inspector to ensure that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education inspections support improvement.
The progress that I have set out today is not the end of our journey. We will continue to focus on and bring forward actions over the coming weeks and months. That includes the publication later this year of refreshed guidance on anti-bullying, work on consequences and additional information to enhance understanding of secondary 4 leavers was published this morning.
The development of the mobile phone guidance and the action plan was a collaborative effort involving many stakeholders, not just those in SAGRABIS but all those who participated in the behaviour in Scottish schools research and the relationships and behaviour summits, or who have spoken to me about their experiences in the classroom or supporting their child. I thank everyone who has shared their experiences with us to inform this important work.
I recognise that there are unlikely to be quick, easy fixes in addressing these challenges—neither can nor should they be addressed by schools alone. It will take sustained effort by everyone who has a role to play to improve the situation. The willingness of all to have constructive conversations about the scale of the challenge and the actions that are needed means that I am confident that that shared commitment exists.
Presiding Officer, in that spirit, I very much hope that everyone across the chamber can support the plan and the trajectory that it puts in place to improve relationships and behaviour in Scotland’s schools for the benefit of our children and young people, our teaching staff and our whole school community.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I would be grateful if those who wish to put a question to the cabinet secretary would press their request-to-speak button.
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement, but, like the guidance on mobile phones and the behaviour action plan, the statement is long on words and very short on detail.
To be fair, the cabinet secretary acknowledges that it has taken far too long to produce the behaviour action plan, from when the Scottish Conservatives first demanded it, in spring 2023, through to the various groups from which Opposition spokespersons were excluded and the delay this summer.
She fails to mention that the EIS said that the plan will be little more than a wish list without the necessary allocation of funding and resources, and that a real opportunity will be wasted. Perhaps most worryingly, the statement about the plan provides little clarity about how and when it will be implemented.
I have three questions for the cabinet secretary. What does her planning tell her would constitute the necessary allocation of funding and resources, and will councils and schools be given those? When precisely will the outcomes set out under theme 7, on tracking impact and progress, be achieved? Finally, when will the cabinet secretary provide clarity about the range of approaches and consequences that are available, including the use of exclusion where there is no appropriate alternative?
Mr Kerr covers a few different areas, and I will try to respond to each in turn.
First, I will pick up on a favourite topic for Mr Kerr and others in this chamber, which is the issue of Opposition spokespeople not being invited to a series of meetings that I held with teachers and others who work in education. I make no apology for that. It was really important to create a safe space in which teaching staff could share their experiences of what had happened in schools, and I do not think that having other politicians in the room would have been helpful to that.
However, Mr Kerr also knows that I am a collegiate cabinet secretary and that I engage with him regularly on a range of educational matters, which is exactly why I met with Opposition members prior to the election to talk about our plans. Broadly, and particularly in relation to behaviour in schools, we have seen quite good party consensus. We may hear more about that in the questions that will follow.
Mr Kerr asked specifically about consequences and about exclusion. For his understanding, I will say that new anti-bullying guidance will be published by the end of this year and, on Friday, Education Scotland published updated attendance guidance. I also draw his attention to an infographic that the Scottish Government published today, which looks specifically at data regarding pupils leaving school after secondary 4. He knows that I am currently concerned about our S4 leavers’ trajectories and positive destinations and that I am also concerned about their behaviour and attendance.
His third point related to consequences, which will be covered in the action plan that is to be published by March next year. We are working with the headteachers task force that I established last year to further develop that. Mr Kerr mentioned exclusion, which will also feature in the updated action plan in March. I can give him further practical examples from the guidance that is being published today, not least the guidance on mobile phones.
He made points about the EIS and about resources. The EIS was part of SAGRABIS and took part in formulating the guidance, which it broadly welcomed. I recognise Mr Kerr’s point about resources, but he also recognises that, this year, the Scottish Government is investing record levels in our education system. If he wants me to invest more, I must ask him from where that would come, because, at the current time—
Please be brief, cabinet secretary.
—we have an incoming Labour Government that seems to be mirroring the spending decisions of the outgoing Conservative Government, which will impact on the resources I have at my disposal as cabinet secretary. I am sure that Mr Kerr would be keen to work with me to ensure that we have additionality from the new UK Government so that this can be adequately resourced.
The publication of the guidance, although long overdue, is welcome, but I worry that the devil will be in the detail of how it is implemented, because, as we have heard, the general secretary of the EIS has said that implementation of the national guidance will need resources.
I therefore come today with a possible solution for the cabinet secretary. Instead of the planned redirection of funding from regional improvement collaboratives to the Government’s centre for teaching excellence—which most of those in the sector do not think is needed, and which the EIS has said will not address the challenges that the cabinet secretary has set out today, which her statement recognised—does she agree that the money would be better spent if it was given to schools to support the implementation of the approach that is set out in the behaviour in schools plan?
I am glad that the member welcomes the publication of the plan. She is correct in saying that the devil will be in the detail.
In developing the guidance, I was very mindful of the fact that it is not for the Government to instruct schools in how to implement behaviour plans. We need to trust Scotland’s teaching profession. I see the member nodding in agreement. When I visited Stonelaw high school two weeks ago to launch the guidance, I spoke to the headteacher in that school about how she was implementing a mobile phone ban. She has taken a much more nuanced approach than the school that I previously taught at in Edinburgh, where the approach is, I understand, more of a whole-school ban. She has taken that approach by getting buy-in from her staff and pupils. I was really struck by the way in which she has allowed that devil in the detail, I suppose, to come to fruition in her school community. However, she has also used, I think, some of the founding principles that the national action plan sets out.
One of the points that headteachers raised with me at the behaviour summits was about the need for Government at the national level to set out a clear expectation on the issue, and that is what I have been keen to do throughout the process.
The member asked a question about the RICs and the centre for teaching excellence. It is important that we do not pit funding to support the profession against funding that is needed to respond to changes in behaviour. I make the point to her that I do not want to take funding away from supporting the teaching profession. Excellent learning and teaching are really important, but I want additionality—
When?
I hear the member shouting, “When?” from a sedentary position. I do not yet have clarity on the VAT that the Labour Government has told us is going to flow to Government from private schools, and I also do not have clarity on the 6,500 extra teachers that the Labour Party promised the rest of the UK. I presume that I am going to get consequentials. However, if I had some certainty about both of those funding streams, perhaps I could give additionality for the behaviour in Scottish schools work.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that some pupils have unique personal circumstances that mean that they require their phones. Can she say more about how the published guidance considers pupils—such as our young carers and those with neurodiversities, mental health struggles or mental conditions—who may need exemptions from school-wide mobile phone policies?
The member raises a really important point that relates to the response that I gave to Pam Duncan-Glancy. It is important that we do not have a monolithic national approach to the matter. The guidance makes it clear that, when school guidance is developed or refreshed, there is a need for schools to look at a range of individual circumstances that might apply. The member has given examples of those.
I know from my previous experience in the classroom that some young people may need that contact. They may need to monitor medication, for example, and young carers may need to remain in touch with family members about their care. In some cases, mobile phones may be a source of support for pupils with additional support needs. Those matters will be known to school communities and they need a tailored response. That is why it is hugely important that we trust our headteachers to get implementation of the policy right. That might look different in different schools, which is why the member’s points about pupils and their needs are so important.
I note that the Scottish Government has given support for whole-school bans by empowering headteachers to take the steps that they consider to be appropriate, and I entirely agree with the statement that
“Headteachers know their schools best”.
However, can the cabinet secretary explain why the Scottish Government is so reluctant to give headteachers even greater autonomy so that they can take whatever steps they believe are required not only to improve behaviour but to raise attainment?
Roz McCall has raised an important point. I pay tribute to her interest in the issue. We have met to discuss it and she has written to me on a number of occasions, particularly in relation to challenges in her region.
On headteachers’ autonomy, we as a Government have always pursued a policy approach that seeks to empower the teaching profession—in particular, headteachers—in Scotland’s schools. One of the ways in which we have been able to exemplify that is through the funding for the Scottish attainment challenge, which flows directly to headteachers and empowers them to take decisions about additional funding in their schools and where that is best placed. That is evidence of us trusting Scotland’s headteachers in practice.
More broadly, I am amenable to the member’s suggestion about empowering headteachers further. Of course, I need to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, recognising its responsibilities, but I am amenable to that because I trust our headteachers. Post-pandemic, we perhaps need to revisit that empowerment agenda, which is one on which we probably agree.
Last month, as she referenced in her statement, the cabinet secretary visited Stonelaw high school in my Rutherglen constituency, which developed its new mobile phone policy following a process of engagement and discussion with young people. Does the cabinet secretary agree that similar approaches will be key to ensuring that young people feel that they have shared ownership of their schools’ policies?
I put on record, given that Stonelaw high school is in Clare Haughey’s constituency, that it is an outstanding school, with an outstanding headteacher and some outstanding young people. I was delighted to meet them two weeks ago, not only to launch the mobile phone guidance, but to talk to them about their experiences of how they have been engaged in policy development. They feel, which I think is hugely important, that they have ownership over the policy, rather than feeling that it is something that is being done to them.
Stonelaw high school gives us an example of how engagement through the curriculum has generated an understanding of the impact of phones on learning. That has really helped to build co-operation with the policy, not just among young people but with their parents and the wider community. I know, from initial feedback from pupils and staff, that the guidance is working and that young people and staff alike feel that they have ownership of the policy. It is certainly an example that I would support other schools in following.
The Government published the “Education Outcomes for Looked after Children 2022/23” report, which shows that care-experienced pupils face significant challenges in achieving academic success, in comparison with their peers. Those are some of the young people who are most at risk in the environment that today’s statement addresses. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government has details of the risk profile of that group? How will those young people feed into the guidance, and how will they be included as looked-after children, as is their right, when the guidance is created?
Martin Whitfield raises a hugely important point. I note that the risk profile would be owned by the local authority, not by the central Government. The authority would have the data on the individual pupils in its cohort, and it would know and understand which of its pupils were care experienced. I would expect headteachers in schools to consider that in their application of the policy. To go back to a previous question from a member, I expect headteachers to work with their cohort on the basis of that risk profile, and to address the needs of, and to support accordingly, pupils who might need access to a mobile phone throughout the school day.
Nevertheless, Martin Whitfield raises an important point. It is also worth my while to remind members that, through the Scottish attainment challenge, there is a specific funding stream that supports looked-after children and care-experienced young people. In addition, through mechanisms such as the virtual school headteachers network, for example, we have been able to support care-experienced young people and get them back into school when, perhaps, in the past they might, for a variety of reasons, not have been able to engage.
We will always work with local authorities to that end. I have set out some of the examples at national level, but with regard to the risk profile, the data set belongs to local authorities, and the legislation sets out that statutory responsibility rests with them.
Digital technology can provide another platform for bullying, harassment and abuse, and it is vital that we keep working to ensure that staff and pupils are safe. Can the cabinet secretary speak to how the guidance, alongside the equally safe in schools programme, feeds into the promotion of positive relationships and anti-bullying policies?
With regard to developing positive relationships, it is fundamental that we recall that the types of behaviour and relationships approaches that are now used in Scotland’s schools are not those that most members in the chamber would have experienced 20-plus years ago. We have moved away from what was previously, I would argue, a relatively punitive approach to behaviour to one that is much more supportive. Throughout the past year, we have heard examples of where that has undoubtedly created tension.
However, I think that the national action plan is important in setting out expectations not only around behaviour, but around where we will go next. To go back to Liam Kerr’s point about consequences, and recording and monitoring, I say that all that needs to be developed with the teaching profession, with our teachers and young people and with their interests at heart.
The cabinet secretary knows that I try not to be cynical, but I am struggling to understand the purpose of the mobile phone guidance. It consists of 10 pages that could be summarised in a single line: “You, as schools, have the same power to restrict mobile phones as you’ve always had.”
The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the cynicism that so many teachers feel—quite rightly—about the huge amounts of guidance that are being produced by the Government and by Education Scotland, but with little, if anything, ever actually changing. What is the additional value of the guidance, when nothing has actually changed in terms of what schools can or cannot do?
I note Mr Greer’s cynicism. He will know that, as a former secondary school teacher, I share it, generally. I note that he received a small clap from Liam Kerr when he made that point; I am not sure if he was—
It was me.
Oh. I apologise.
To go back to the substance, this is not another example of guidance that is not going to have an impact. It is a three-year plan, and it will be monitored, which is quite different from the situation with other guidance that has been published previously. It will be monitored and the outcome will be published, and that will be shared with the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which I know is taking a very keen interest in the matter.
My final point is that the advice and guidance have not come from thin air. They have come at the behest of the profession, which asked me, as cabinet secretary, for a clearer direction on behaviour. The profession was very clear that things have changed post-pandemic, and it asked for clear guidance from central Government on expectations about behaviour and relationships. We have responded to that call through the national action plan.
As I intimated in my statement, this is not the end of the road: it is part of a process. I have set out a range of measures that we have already taken in the past year, but the action plan will be reported on every year for the next three years, and that will be the marker of progress.
I am supportive of these moves. Please correct me if I am oversimplifying, but is it not the case that the most important aspect is that headteachers know their schools best and that empowering teachers to take the steps that best fit their learning environments is surely the correct approach? Can the cabinet secretary provide examples of how the latest guidance will support schools to make the best choices for their pupils?
I agree with Mr Adam. I mentioned previously that, fundamentally, the guidance sets out our expectation that, as a Government, we trust Scotland’s headteachers to deliver improved behaviour and relationships in our classrooms. The guidance goes some way to supporting that. The guidance also recognises and respects the role of headteachers. That perhaps contrasts with the approach that has been taken in other parts of the UK, where the Government has decided on a national ban. I think that, in education, it is far better to work with the professionals in whom we trust and who work in our classrooms on a daily basis. I have been clear that the decision on whether to introduce bans on mobile phones is entirely one for headteachers. However, if they choose to do so, they will have my full support.
The member asked for an example. I have spoken at length about Stonelaw high school’s approach, which has been possible only because of the leadership of the headteacher in that school in supporting her staff and her young people and engaging with the wider community. That is an example of good practice. I am sure that other headteachers will take their own approaches, but the fundamental point is that the Scottish Government trusts Scotland’s headteachers to enact a ban, should they see fit.
I give credit to the cabinet secretary for the focus that she has put on behaviour issues. I think that she gets the problem, and it is good to have a new action plan but, fundamentally, I cannot see what is new. We have lots of guidance, lots of documents and lots of action plans that will be monitored, but I am not sure exactly what will be monitored. What has fundamentally changed? Lots of the teachers I have spoken to are completely oblivious to the guidance. They have not read the action plan and have not seen it. Will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity now to set out concisely what is different?
Mr Rennie asked what will be monitored. Of course, the action plan will be monitored over the course of the next year, but let me give an example of some of the things that are in the action plan. For example, one point that we have discussed at length relates to consequences. A range of measures can be taken in relation to consequences in school. In fact, Mr Rennie and I and others discussed that very recently. It is important that the action plan identifies what acceptable consequences look like. That is a clear-cut example of something that is different, as it is not something that the Government has specified before.
The other ask that came to the Government from the profession, from parents and from young people was for a definition of violence. We perhaps discussed that previously, too. That will be set out under the action plan. That has never been set out by Government before, and I think that it is important.
The further work that I talked about relates to the work that Education Scotland is undertaking. The work in relation to S4 leaver data was published on Friday, which is really important, and there is work in relation to attendance more generally, where we know that there are real challenges post-pandemic, particularly with certain year groups.
The action plan will be monitored by SAGRABIS, not just by central Government. We will be held to account in relation to the actions in the plan.
Of course, the action plan has been published. I am sorry to hear that Mr Rennie’s constituents have not engaged with it, but I am sure that, as a constituency MSP, he could help to furnish them with a copy of the action plan and to share it widely, because it is hugely important that the profession is engaged with it.
Briefly, cabinet secretary.
Of course, the action plan itself came from the profession, which was part of creating it in co-production with the Scottish Government and Scotland’s teaching unions.
Leadership is about taking bold and courageous decisions. Alongside teaching groups and experts such as Lindsay Paterson, I have been calling for a ban on mobile phones in classrooms for quite some time now. Can the cabinet secretary confirm today that the approach in her action plan will empower our schools and headteachers to take the necessary action to do that, or are we, in the words of Lindsay Paterson,
“leaving it up to schools to argue it out with resentful adolescents and stroppy parents”?
Yes, it will empower headteachers to undertake a mobile phone ban. Many schools already have one. I read a piece in one of the newspapers in relation to Mr Paterson’s views on the issue. I am slightly concerned that he does not understand the limitations on my powers as cabinet secretary. I cannot enforce a national ban—I do not have that power. However, local authorities, who run our schools, have that power. That is why I trust Scotland’s headteachers to get it right in their schools. I support Scotland’s headteachers in taking the right decisions for the young people in their care. I am not sure whether Mr Paterson disagrees with that statement, but I do not.
The cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement the broad impact that increased access to smartphones, screens and social media is having on young people in terms of mental health addiction and sleep deprivation. Digital technology and social media have provided an anonymous platform for unacceptable conduct that might not normally happen face to face. Obviously, that is a problem for wider society and is not just about young people. That said, however, can the cabinet secretary say more about how the guidance will help schools to support good, healthy behaviour online?
The member raises an important point. I am sure that colleagues in the chamber will engage with teachers and parents and carers in their constituencies, and that they will recognise some of the challenges that Ms Maguire has outlined in relation to behaviour online.
The guidance makes it clear that unacceptable behaviour, whether online or not, is unacceptable. That applies in the playground, the classroom or anywhere else. However, there is a limitation to where schools can act in that regard, which is why having really strong home-link relationships is hugely important. It is also why the development of a behaviour action plan includes having strong parental links. Having high expectations for respectful and responsible conduct should also be rooted in a school’s existing positive relationships and behaviour policies.
More broadly, there is an issue and a challenge around the use of social media and behaviour online, and schools are no different in that regard. However, there is an opportunity, through the refreshed guidance on acceptable behaviours and linking that to the curriculum, to consider further learning on the use of digital technologies and in relation to the internet. I know that schools are taking that forward at the current time, and we will continue to support them in that development through the behaviour action plan.
That concludes the ministerial statement on mobile phones and behaviour and relationships in school.
Previous
Clyde and Hebrides FerriesNext
Decision Time