Official Report 1076KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on the Scottish Government response to the independent review of qualifications and assessment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
15:01
Today, I am pleased to set out the Scottish Government’s next steps on qualifications reform in response to the recommendations from the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I once again thank Professor Louise Hayward and the independent review group for the significant care and attention that they took in producing the final report.
Last year, when I became Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, numerous reports were sitting on my desk, with a significant programme of reform to consider. My primary concern has been ensuring that I took the right decisions for our young people, the teachers who support them and wider society. That is why I paused elements of the education reform programme. Taking the time to really listen to the views of school pupils, teachers and parents groups alike has been critical to informing the Government’s response to the independent review.
The pandemic has changed our schools. That context, which has been compounded by constrained public finances, cannot be ignored. Challenges with attendance, attainment, relationships and behaviour are the reality for our schools every day. It is my job to recognise that and to shape a response accordingly.
It is clear that there is a wide range of views on qualifications reform. Some people continue to call for radical changes next week, while others favour a more pragmatic approach, recognising the other pressures that face schools post-Covid.
For some time now, there has been an understandable focus on the senior phase and qualifications pathways. We must be mindful that qualification reform is not in itself a panacea. Our ambition to improve Scottish education must encompass high-quality learning and teaching at all levels: in early years and in our primary and secondary schools across Scotland. Indeed, if we narrowly consider the senior phase of our children’s education—that is, secondary 4 to secondary 6—in a silo, it will be too late in a child’s educational journey to make the necessary interventions. To that end, I will set out a fresh national approach to educational improvement later this year. The new plan will set out the short, medium and longer-term priorities for Scottish education, with a clear focus on excellence and equity through improvement. Further, I believe that a new, independent inspectorate will have a key role to play in driving improvement.
It is essential, within that new opportunity, that the local support that is needed for schools is there, particularly given that the statutory responsibility for the delivery of school education currently rests in the hands of local authorities. To that end, a national thematic inspection of local authority approaches to school improvement is under way, with inspectors due to visit every council in Scotland. That will ensure that, nationally, we have a better understanding of priority areas for improvement and examples of effective support and intervention. It will further support local authorities to address local variability, as evidenced in this year’s exam results, and enhance educational quality.
Our approach to improving education must be built on the existing commitment and professionalism of Scotland’s teachers. That is why, over the coming weeks, I will lead a series of regional events, initially with secondary headteachers, followed by engagement with primary and early years teachers. They will provide further opportunities to test a more focused improvement plan for both local government and national Government to support.
The evolution of Scotland’s approach to assessment in the senior phase will be an integral part of our wider plans to improve the curriculum. The curriculum improvement cycle is already under way, beginning with maths and numeracy. That means that, for the first time, there will be a systematic approach to ensuring that the curriculum in Scotland remains relevant and forward looking, that it clarifies the role of knowledge and that, ultimately, it supports high-quality teaching, learning and progression.
Communications with updates on progress with the curriculum improvement work will start later this month. I will write to the Education, Children and Young People Committee in due course, setting out further details and associated timescales for delivery in every curricular area. Fundamentally, our approach will be underpinned by teacher expertise. Subject specialists must and will lead on improving and updating Scotland’s curriculum.
The curriculum should drive qualifications, not the other way round. That is why the qualifications content will also be updated, to ensure strong alignment between broad general education and the senior phase. Although curriculum improvement and qualifications reform are an integral part of our education reform programme, our national bodies will also be reformed to support the changes and improvements that are required.
The effective leadership of those bodies will be key. As Parliament may be aware, a new chair of the Scottish Qualifications Authority was appointed in December last year to lead its transition to qualifications Scotland. This week, both the substantive posts of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland and chief executive of Education Scotland were advertised on a permanent basis. The three organisations will play a pivotal role in curriculum improvement and qualification development. Leadership of all three will be essential in garnering trust and credibility with Scotland’s young people, teachers, and parents and carers.
I agree with the report’s recommendation that the balance of assessment methods in the senior phase should change so as to have less reliance on high-stakes final exams. That means that, in the future, internal and continuous assessment will contribute a greater percentage of a final grade. That will support more young people to successfully evidence their learning, and it will act to increase the resilience of our overall approach to assessment.
I want to be clear that taking steps to rebalance assessment does not mean that exams will be removed. I can therefore confirm that examinations will remain part of our overall national approach and will not be removed from all national 5 courses. I know from direct engagement as cabinet secretary that many young people prefer examinations over continuous assessment. As evidenced by the teachers survey that was published earlier this year, many secondary school teachers who responded support the retention of exams as a means of applying a consistent and objective standard.
There are, however, a number of practical national courses where an exam might not be needed. The qualifications body is consulting on whether courses such as national 5 and higher fashion and technology, national 5 practical cookery and national 5 practical electronics should have an examination component.
I support the view that the senior phase has, over time, become overly complex. It is right that young people are now able to choose from a wider variety of learning opportunities than previously. However, it is vitally important that all young people have a clear and coherent senior phase offer, which aligns with pathways that are available in both higher and further education, and on into employment. The Scottish Government therefore supports the view that a degree of rationalisation of the senior phase will allow us to ensure clearer pathways that are less confusing for young people. Learning from our past experience with unit assessments and associated issues around teacher workload, we will further explore how modularisation of graded national courses can be reintroduced, so that pupils have maximum flexibility to build credit as they progress.
With regard to interdisciplinary learning, or IDL as it is known, I recognise the desire, including from some young people themselves, for IDL opportunities to be more consistently available. It is that consistency—that parity of opportunity—that is important. Indeed, I am conscious of the recent publication by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education on curriculum design in Scotland, which stated:
“There remains lack of clarity regarding high-quality IDL”.
I am therefore of the view that more work is required if IDL is to become a required part of the senior phase. A refreshed national working group, which will be chaired by a senior secondary school leader, will bring together all relevant parties that are already active in this space. The group will lead a new phase of work, with the objective of better determining the place of IDL in secondary schools, while ensuring that an equitable, high-quality offer is available for all young people. In addition, the exercise will help to expand our shared knowledge of the ways in which IDL could be embedded in a school’s curriculum, including in respect of timetabling. Consideration will also be given to accreditation.
The Scottish Government supports the principle that young people should receive recognition for their wider learning. We will therefore explore the issue of how best to recognise such achievement with a range of stakeholders, including young people. In doing so, we will need to work through the significant concerns that have been raised, with the main concern being that such a step would further entrench and exacerbate social inequity. In considering the next steps, that is the principal barrier that I believe must be addressed and overcome.
To facilitate greater recognition of wider achievement, I agree that the development of a national digital profile would benefit young people by helping them to consolidate their learning. A profile has been established within the My World of Work platform, which is managed by Skills Development Scotland, and it will now be further improved in conjunction with teachers and young people. That will ensure that all young people in Scotland have consistent and cost-free access to a digital profile, which is a key recommendation in the report.
The central proposal from the independent review is that Scotland should adopt a Scottish diploma of achievement as a senior phase leaving certificate. Although we are supportive of the development of a leaving certificate as a shared longer-term goal for Scottish education, we believe that more work is needed to determine the exact content of such a certificate and how it would operate. We will work with schools to consider how programmes of learning, IDL and wider achievement could be combined in a more holistic illustration of a pupil’s achievements.
The Scottish Government is firmly of the view that teachers require more time if they are to be able to accept greater responsibility for formal assessment. With that in mind, the Scottish Government remains fully committed to the delivery of our commitment to reduce class contact time by 90 minutes a week. That matter is being prioritised by the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, which, members will recall, is a tripartite body that consists of the trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government. It is imperative that all parties bring the necessary focus to delivery as quickly and effectively as possible, because we cannot reform our education system without giving teachers more time.
For my part, I know that there are parts of the country where we could begin to roll out reduced class contact time tomorrow, so it is imperative that we get an agreement on that from the SNCT in order to allow us to move at pace.
Allied to that, and to help teachers to focus on learning and teaching, we have launched a CivTech challenge, which invites bids that are designed to reduce teacher workload via the use of artificial intelligence.
Our teachers must be the leaders of the change that we need to see, and they must be empowered to lead the improvements in our education system. That is why an experienced secondary headteacher will be seconded into the new qualifications body to lead a new chapter of meaningful engagement with Scotland’s teachers.
The actions on qualifications reform that I am setting out today seek to achieve a balance between ambition and action that is focused, pragmatic and deliverable, given the resources that are available to national and local government and to schools themselves. They build directly on the hard work, success and creativity that are already evident in every school in Scotland. That approach to evolving qualifications and assessment will deliver a fairer and more credible system that enhances learning and teaching, while supporting better outcomes for young people.
However, that is only one part of the improvement picture. A much more holistic and longer-term approach that takes account of the changes in our schools post-pandemic is required to drive the totality of improvements that must support better outcomes for our children and young people.
I note that the length of the statement exceeded the 10 minutes that was allocated, but I intend to protect the 20 minutes or so for questions.
I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance sight of her statement. I welcome the fact that, at last, responses to the many excellent reports that have been produced are dripping through from the Government to Parliament, although I wonder whether such a fragmented—as opposed to holistic—approach is the optimum way to address the reforms that are needed.
On that note, the Hayward report and the reports from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Professor Muir and many others have all made it clear that what is needed is a long-term strategic vision for the future of Scotland’s education system, from which actions, plans and priorities can be driven, but no such vision or destination has been laid out in the cabinet secretary’s statement. Given that she has chosen to ignore those experts’ calls for a proper strategic destination, how confident can the cabinet secretary be that a piecemeal approach, rather than a visionary one, will deliver the outcomes that the experts tell us are needed?
Secondly, the cabinet secretary makes no mention of the up-front and on-going costs of the reforms, working groups and plans or the delivery of reduced class contact time. Last week, we heard the cabinet secretary justify the shameful breach of the SNP’s manifesto promise on school meals by referring to a lack of money. How much do all the plans that are set out in the statement cost, and from where will that sum be drawn?
School leaders advise that the challenges with attendance, attainment, relationships and behaviour—to use the cabinet secretary’s earlier words—would improve if the curriculum offer were broader and more appealing to all learners than traditional academic pathways might be. Therefore, what plans does the Scottish Government have to support schools to offer a breadth of curriculum that is suitable for all learners?
The member raises some pertinent points. First, I will not make any apologies for building in extra time to consult the teaching profession. When I was appointed, I was told that there was real ambition in the system for radical change now, but through my engagement with Scotland’s secondary teachers over the past year, I have found that, actually, that view is not shared across the profession. That is important.
That is not what I asked.
The member will have reflected on the views—[Interruption.] I hear the member chuntering, but if he would listen—[Interruption.]
Can we listen to the questions and responses with a degree of courtesy and respect?
The member asked about a longer-term strategic vision. I do not think that today was the moment to set out that vision, because today’s statement is a response to a review that looked specifically at the senior phase level of qualifications. However, in my statement and the Government’s written response, which I appreciate that members have perhaps not had time to familiarise themselves with, I said that I will set out the longer-term ambition for improvement in Scottish education. It is hugely important that that does not look narrowly at only the senior phase; it must look at early years and primary and secondary education in totality.
The second part of the member’s question relates to funding. It is worth while pointing out that the actions that I have set out today are pragmatic and proportionate. The member talks to the issues that were highlighted in last week’s debate, which relate largely to funding, and I am very cognisant of that as cabinet secretary. It is a feature of my thinking with regard to the practical deliverability of qualifications reform, when the public finances are as constrained as they are in Scotland. The member may wish to reflect on why that might be the case.
However, on-going qualifications development is a key function of the current qualifications body, and it will be a key function of Qualifications Scotland. Therefore, much of that work will be costed and funded as part of core operational activity that is already being undertaken by the current qualifications body.
The member asked about the curriculum offer. Through education reform, I will be working directly with schools, the new qualifications body and Education Scotland on how we can help to support a better curriculum offer across the country. There is variance across the country, and we need to look at how we can deliver a consistent and equitable offer for all young people.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and for meeting
Opposition spokespeople this morning.
Rightly, there is a huge level of expectation and aspiration with regard to reform. However, today’s announcement does not match that expectation and aspiration or the appetite and need for change. Let us remember how we got here: clear issues with the structure of the curriculum; poorly implemented movement between broad general education and the senior phase by the Government, leading to fewer choices and incoherence; and misalignment between the curriculum and the purpose of assessment. However, rather than a concrete plan to address those concerns, and the bold vision for education that experts are calling for, what we have today is just an indication that that vision or plan—another plan—will come in December. There is nothing that will give much-needed certainty to teachers or pupils.
In the interests of getting clarity for the people who are waiting for answers, I will ask the cabinet secretary four things. Has she modelled the impact of the changes on teacher workload? What does she mean when she refers to rationalisation of the senior phase? Does she have confidence that the Education (Scotland) Bill creates the structures and instils the leadership that is needed to reform the system in the way that she wants? Does the cabinet secretary really believe that today’s announcement meets the scale of the challenge?
I am sorry that I did not quite catch Ms Duncan-Glancy’s final question. It is worth while recalling the view of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, which, today, said:
“The SSTA welcomes the Cabinet Secretary’s statement on the Government’s response to the Hayward Review. The statement maps a way forward in making the cultural changes required in secondary schools in regard national qualifications and a teacher led continuous assessment. Many SSTA members will be pleased to hear there will be an element of external assessment at Nat 5 in the short-term and that any future developments will be trialled and piloted before implementation.”
Ms Duncan-Glancy raised a point about how the practicalities of reform will work in schools. Having been in school the last time that the Government introduced curriculum reform, I know that there are often challenges with how that works on the ground. It is important that the Government works to resource the piloting of measures that are outlined in the response to ensure that teachers have the necessary additionality that may be required in order to make the reforms work.
I have spoken to a number of different actions that are already under way. It is worth saying that the work that we will be undertaking on qualifications reform does not sit in a silo separate from the wider work that Mr Dey is leading on skills reform. I will chair a meeting of the curriculum improvement and qualifications reform assurance group to ensure that progress is being made and that our shared timetable is being clearly communicated.
The member mentioned teacher workload. I mentioned in my response—there is more detail on this in the Government’s written response—the need to look at, for example, the use of artificial intelligence to reduce teacher workload. There are opportunities there, and the Government has commissioned further work to that end, because it is hugely important that the reintroduction of continuous assessment does not overburden teachers. Having given the update to Parliament today, I am resolutely focused on reducing class contact time for teachers, because I am very aware that teachers in our secondary schools in particular need time to have the opportunity to engage with the changes that are being proposed.
I am conscious that, with the previous statement, we were not able to call every member who wanted to ask a question because of the length of questions and responses. We have 12 and a half minutes, and 10 colleagues who want to get in, so the questions and responses will need to be tighter.
Over recent times, and in particular since the pandemic, when I have visited schools in my constituency, students—including those at St Andrew’s high in Coatbridge, for example—have often expressed an overwhelming preference for continuous assessment over final written exam models. A progression of that approach has been featured in this year’s programme for government. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the Scottish Government’s plans for the diversification of assessment models?
I accept that the balance of assessment in the senior phase should now change so that there is less reliance on high-stakes final examinations, with internal and continuous assessment contributing to a greater percentage of the final grade. That will really help to support more young people to successfully evidence their learning, and for many, it will also reduce the stress, which Fulton MacGregor spoke about, that is often associated with final examinations.
As I made clear in my statement, taking those steps to rebalance assessment does not mean that exams will be removed as a matter of course. Many studies from around the world evidence the value of examinations in applying a consistent and objective standard as part of an overall approach.
That said, as has been referenced in this year’s programme for government, there may be practical national courses—as I alluded to today—in which an exam might not be needed. The qualifications body is currently looking at that rationalisation exercise.
I note from the cabinet secretary’s statement that she is committed to reducing teacher contact by 90 minutes, and it has been mentioned in the chamber. That was promised in the 2021 SNP manifesto, and we are now in 2024. With about 18 months until the next election, time is seriously running out for so many of the Government promises. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that that proposal will actually happen?
The member will know that reducing teacher contact was a key feature of my statement today. That was quite deliberate, because I believe firmly that we cannot deliver qualifications reform without creating the headspace and the time to enable teachers to engage with that process. Throughout my responses, I have emphasised that I am very keen to ensure that our secondary teachers in particular are leading on qualifications development.
The member asked about the deliverability of the 90 minutes. In my statement, I made the point that that will require the agreement of the tripartite: the Scottish Government, COSLA and the teaching trade unions. As cabinet secretary, I will play as full a part as I can in that process.
I said in my statement today that I could go ahead tomorrow if we could get an agreement around the purpose of that time, because there are enough teachers in certain parts of the country right now to enable us to get going.
I want us to get going—I hope that the member hears the urgency that I attach to that. I look forward to working with all partners through the SNCT on delivering that change to teachers’ working conditions, which I think will benefit our young people.
I welcome the statement and the time that the cabinet secretary is taking to effectively implement the reform and to do so in a collegiate way, and to future proof the system. In that regard, can she say a bit more how the curriculum improvement cycle will interact with the work on qualifications reform?
As I set out in my opening statement, the evolution of Scotland’s approach to assessment in the senior phase needs to be integral to our wider plans to improve the totality of Scotland’s curriculum. The curriculum improvement cycle that I announced last year is already under way. We started with maths and numeracy and, for the first time, there will be a systematic approach to ensuring that the curriculum in Scotland remains relevant and updated. That work is being led by a secondary headteacher who is a maths specialist to trade; that is hugely important in building credibility in our approach.
However, we know that curriculums should drive qualifications—not the other way around. Qualifications content also needs to be updated in line with the curriculum improvement work, to ensure alignment between the broad general education and the senior phase. For me, that matter was not resolved the last time that we considered qualifications reform.
The practicalities of things such as timetabling are really important in the process to ensure that we get the culture change in the senior phase that we need and, arguably, did not get the last time that we reformed the qualifications system.
The cabinet secretary has quoted others’ references to the announcement today. She might be interested to know that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland has just said:
“The Scottish Government’s long anticipated response to the Hayward Review was an opportunity to advance the change that young people desperately need. Yet instead of committing to the effort of comprehensive reform, today’s announcement was little more than tentative steps.”
What is the cabinet secretary’s comment on that?
The children’s commissioner made comments last week and, if she would like to meet me to discuss any of those issues, my door is always open.
I met Scottish Youth Parliament members this morning and engaged heavily with them on the plans and next steps. The views of young people have been and continue to be vital to informing our approach to the evolution of Scotland’s qualifications offer. Young people were involved through the independent review and the Scottish Youth Parliament, which led a group that brought together a diverse range of young people. Significant engagement with young people was also undertaken through the national discussion on education.
As I mentioned, throughout the past year, I have spoken directly to many young people about qualifications reform, and they have a divergence of views on that. I met the SYP only this morning.
I am clear that the views, knowledge and lived experience of people who are studying for qualifications are essential to delivering qualifications that are in pupils’ best interests. That is why we are ensuring a stronger voice for young people and adult learners, with the formal governance arrangements in qualifications Scotland looking at the establishment of the learners panel, which will be hugely important and a significant shift in how the qualifications body currently operates.
In all those matters, the role of the teacher will be absolutely vital. Will the cabinet secretary set out how she will ensure that the voices of teachers are heard throughout the process, and how teachers will be supported to deliver that approach?
Teachers, including those in the Gaelic-medium education sector, need to be meaningfully engaged in reform and empowered to lead the improvements that we all want. To that end, as I intimated in my statement, a secondary headteacher will be seconded into the qualifications body; that is hugely important.
Meaningful engagement with teachers is already happening in the driving of curriculum improvement work. Andy Brown is leading the co-creation approach, and the work on maths and numeracy will deliver improvements in that curriculum area.
As I said in response to Roz McCall, I also accept that teachers will need time and space to engage with reform. I remain committed to the delivery of that commitment to reducing class contact time, and I am keen to inject some urgency into that work. I see that as the next step in creating the time that is needed for teachers to fully engage with the proposed changes.
The Scottish Greens secured the review after the 2020 SQA scandal because Scotland’s Victorian-era exam system was not fit for purpose. We are disappointed that the review’s findings are largely not being taken forward. We welcome the fact that there will be more continuous assessment, but surely that should sit alongside fewer exams. It appears that the Government is layering one on top of the other. Will that not massively increase the already unsustainable workload of secondary teachers?
In response to Ross Greer’s point about fewer exams, I talked in my statement about the need for a degree of rationalisation, which Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke to me about. That is about looking at the number of courses that are currently delivered in schools and asking whether they might be more appropriately delivered elsewhere, such as in college settings. For example, qualifications Scotland is going to reduce the number of examinations in practical subjects; that work is already under way.
For me, the biggest change that is being proposed today is that we will not have an approach that involves high-stakes final examinations. For example, a smaller percentage associated with a final examination will put less stress on our young people. Fundamentally, that is really important. It will lead to better approaches to learning and teaching, as assessment evidence is gathered throughout the academic year, and, I hope, to a move away from what we have historically referred to as the two-term dash.
The ethos of curriculum for excellence and that of the senior phase have not, to my mind, been able to interlink together correctly. Part of that we need to resolve through appropriate support on timetabling. However, I want the teacher voice to be at the heart of the Government’s response to all the recommendations. I have been clear that, for every single angle, we will have teachers leading on the developments that we need to see. I want to continue that work with the profession, because it is only through working with it that we can drive the improvements that we need to see for our young people.
As the Hayward review states:
“The relationship between poverty and achievement is an international challenge.”
Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that decisions made at Westminster and the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s recent warning that things will get worse will keep more children and families in poverty, the impact of which will be felt across their classrooms?
The member raises an important question. The financial context is ultimately absolutely relevant to what I am able to do as education secretary in relation to education reform.
We know that UK public finances are facing severe challenges, with a £22 billion gap in funding and with the upcoming UK budget expected to be painful. We have had to manage public finances in that context. In spite of that challenging context, we continue to prioritise investment in our children and young people’s education. We have the highest spend per pupil in the UK, the highest teacher pupil ratio and continued investment through the Scottish attainment challenge and pupil equity funding. That is making a difference, but it is undoubtedly becoming much more challenging, with funding cuts being driven from elsewhere. That is also impacting on the level of ambition that I can have around curriculum and qualification reform.
It has been more than six reports and eight years since the deep problems in education were identified by Nicola Sturgeon, who is not here yet again today, despite it being her defining mission. With the bulk of the recommendations being rejected or stuck into working groups, does the cabinet secretary think that her statement matches the scale of the problem that has been identified? Why does the cabinet secretary sound so sceptical, when she is putting so much of the work on personal pathways, the diploma and interdisciplinary learning into working groups that she has established?
Eight years ago, back in 2014, I was in a classroom delivering new qualifications. I know how this works and I understand how it operates in our schools. It needs to be dealt with carefully. When Mr Rennie talks about matching the scale of ambition, I am thinking about the pragmatic deliverability of that in our classrooms. I will always have that at the heart of my decision making in this role, because it is really important that we get this right for Scotland’s children and young people.
I could come to the chamber today and accept all the recommendations, but I do not have the budget to resource them, as the member knows. We had a debate to that end only last week.
Mr Rennie talks about working groups. Yes, I think that they are important. It is important that teachers who have skills in areas such as interdisciplinary learning—the Government’s response refers to a number of schools that have real skill sets in that area—are able to pilot approaches that others might be able to learn from.
I am also cognisant of the HMIE reports that say that there is variability across the country at the current time in relation to IDL. We need to make sure that there is an equitable and consistent offer, which is not the case currently. I am taking small steps forward in a number of those areas through working groups, but fundamentally through teacher leadership, because I think that that is the right way to deliver qualification reform.
Cabinet secretary, in your statement you said that you believe that a new independent inspectorate will have a key role to play in driving improvement. At committee yesterday, not one of the witnesses who appeared shared that view. They questioned the independence of the new chief inspector, suggesting instead that it should be a non-ministerial office that reports to Parliament rather than to ministers. Those witnesses are concerned that the role appears to be report orientated and to focus on the inspection of establishments. Critically, the definition and purpose of inspection is missing.
Do you agree that the legislation needs to be amended to deal with the serious flaws, to ensure the effectiveness of the chief inspector role from day 1, and to ensure that what you have outlined here today will be achieved?
Through the chair.
My statement today is about the Hayward review. I accept that the member has asked me about wider work that relates to a piece of legislation on which I will be giving evidence to her committee in the coming weeks.
The approach that we have taken in relation to the separation of HMIE from Education Scotland mirrors the approach that existed prior to the joining of Learning and Teaching Scotland and the inspectorate. It is an approach that the system previously followed and that teachers will be familiar with. If the member wishes to lodge amendments to the bill, that is in her gift. I am happy to work with her to listen to any concerns that the committee might have.
However, it was a recommendation that the inspectorate be removed from Education Scotland. The Government is now legislating to deliver on that recommendation, and I hope that members will welcome that.