Chamber and committees

I am keen to hear from the other panellists who are online. Larry Flanagan was quite critical and said, in effect, that there were exams of sorts, although teachers were trying to do assessments. Some have said that the assessment process is much less stressful than the exam process, in which there are “big hit” exams. Does this year really tell us whether that is right or not? As you said, teachers and pupils were incredibly stressed by repeated assessments throughout the period.

Secondly, on your point about changes to the fourth year this year, does that throw up a much more significant question about the age of leaving education? If we want pupils to leave with something worth while, do we have to change the age at which they can leave school or education?

There is a significant debate that we need to have about measurement not just of the overall system to help politicians in the national debate but of what is going on in the classroom, too. Your report makes it quite clear that you think that using the SNSA assessment process—[Inaudible.]—for broad general education. Following on from Ross Greer’s questions—[Inaudible.]—SNSAs would not be used for national monitoring purposes. There needs to be a different process.

You have also talked about the separation of the—[Interruption.] I am sorry—something has happened.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that explanation, minister. I have no problem with the proposed changes, which I support. However, you will know that uptake of the provision is particularly low across the country, with only about one third of eligible two-year-olds accessing the service. What efforts are being made to increase uptake? There is little point in changing the criteria unless we can deal with the bigger problem of the general low uptake.

I have one more short question. Does that cause a problem with the connections with further education, higher education and employers? They are used to the current system, with its focus on knowledge, and you are proposing to change that. How do we make sure that it is fully integrated and that we do not have a problem at that end, by solving the problem between BGE and the senior phase?

My screen has gone funny.

I understand the point that SNSAs narrowly focus on one capacity and that that needs to change, but there are two separate issues here. The fact is that national monitoring needs to be separate from the assessment process. Am I understanding you correctly that your very clear message to us is that SNSAs are not suitable for national monitoring purposes?

The report makes a lot of comment and recommendations about how knowledge is addressed. There is often misunderstanding about what is covered by knowledge, but I note that there is also an issue about how it is addressed in the broad general education and how that should change. In your report, pupils talk about their difficulties in catching up with the knowledge requirements of the senior phase because it has not been covered sufficiently in the broad general education, but the report also identifies a bias in the system towards one of the four capacities—successful learners. Am I correct in saying that there is a tension in that respect? Can you explain a little bit more the issue of knowledge and what needs to be done to address it properly?

That is right.

Minister, your earlier answer was helpful, but is part of the problem not the structure for the provision of the service? You will find that the centres are—[Inaudible.]—and sometimes not in every community, so people have to travel quite some distance to access the local nursery or early learning facility. That might be particularly challenging for people who are on low incomes. Have there been any discussions with COSLA and councils about making sure that there is a greater number of centres so that people can access a centre that is more local to them?

The report also says that there is too much emphasis on the successful learners aspect of the four capacities. Is it not a slight contradiction to recommend more focus on knowledge in one part of the report and, in another, to say that there is almost too much emphasis on knowledge?