Chamber and committees

Good morning, everyone. I am usually on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but I have come over to this committee today. I would like drill down into how the minimum core obligations apply in education. We accept that everyone has the right to education—that they have a place. In Scotland, the curriculum is based loosely on Bloom’s taxonomy, but sitting beside that is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Where do the minimum core obligations fit in with that? We can think of them as a pyramid that is sitting on sand. Are the core obligations the sand underneath that hierarchy of needs, or are they part of it? That is my opening gambit. Luis, you look as though you are itching to get in with a response.

Thank you very much. You said that decision makers had to act. I think that you have already responded to my colleague Pam with some of the actions that the Scottish Government could take. I want to widen that out a little bit and ask about the areas that you are prioritising and how they fit with the Scottish Government’s priorities. Do you think that that is a good fit, or are there areas that the Scottish Government should look at that would align with your priorities? Ramiza first, please, if that is possible.

I do not.

For absolute transparency, I should say that I am a member of the NASUWT. Mike Corbett is probably expecting more difficult questions, and I will try to be as non-biased as possible.

I will move on to whom the bill should cover. The bill defines a child as someone under the age of 18, but the age range goes up to 26, so that huge band covers school-age children and those older than that. We all know that, daily, teachers in schools face a wide variety of pupils and needs. Do teachers in mainstream schools routinely consider whether a pupil has a disability, as opposed to additional support needs, and how to meet those needs? There is a difference, as we know. I ask Mike Corbett to answer first.

That is a good example of the transition issue.

Do the witnesses agree that everyone who meets the Equality Act 2010 definition of a disability should automatically have a transition plan, or should there be an element of self-identification and an opt-out process? In previous answers, it was said that young people, for whatever reason, might not want to declare that they are disabled. The equality guidance states that,

“In the vast majority of cases”,

it will be evident that there is a disability. That will not always be the case, however, so there is a bit of wiggle room, is there not? It would be good to hear your opinions on that.

Okay. Will the bill make that a bit clearer, or will it not alter the process at all?

It might be helpful to tell us about that, because that multi-agency work is complex and requires time. The teacher is at the heart of that, because they see the pupil regularly, whether that be for a single subject or for the whole day. How effective is that process at the moment? Is there scope to improve it through the bill? Other witnesses will definitely want to come in on that point.

You have highlighted that every young person has an individual journey. The reason why I asked about and explored the bill’s scope is that the number of young people who come under the definition will have a direct impact on resourcing, and that will have financial implications.

Thank you.

I think so.