Chamber and committees

We have already committed to strengthening the code of practice in this space, and I know that that work has been going on since the 2021 review. However, on Mr Greer’s substantive point, he is asking me to commit today to changing legislation, so I seek to come back to him on that.

There is undoubtedly an opportunity in public sector reform. Audit Scotland and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists have made points about that here and have said that parents should not have to fight. That goes to the heart of the issue, because we have built a system that can result in a senior teacher in a school having to pull partners together to co-ordinate the support for a young person. We must put the young person at the centre—that is the GIRFEC ethos—but let us build support around the young person rather than fight over budget lines as often happens now. Public sector reform will give us an opportunity to drive that forward.

We are already beginning cross-portfolio work with health on a number of different areas. Speech and language therapy is a good example, and there are other opportunities to bring health to the table. For example, I would be happy to share details with the committee of how Education Scotland is working with Public Health Scotland and a number of headteachers on a public health approach to attendance. That is really interesting, because health has a huge role to play in tackling some of the challenges.

To that end, I hope that the update that we will publish following the committee’s report will be helpful, but I will speak to officials about that. Given that officials and I engage with the partnership boards more regularly than the committee does, it may be that we can send the committee updates every six months, for example, on the progress of that work.

Absolutely. A key theme in the committee’s evidence has been that the approach cannot simply be about education responding to the challenge; we need a partnership approach from various partners. I have touched on health today, but the member makes a good point about the importance of football clubs and local communities.

In the debate that we had on behaviour in schools a couple of weeks ago, in Conservative parliamentary time, Brian Whittle gave a very good speech to that end. He is passionate about the subject anyway, but the role of sport in responding to some of the challenges post-Covid is fascinating, and that is an opportunity for us to pursue further. I know that Mr Macpherson has a constituency interest in the matter, as he has raised that with me in the chamber previously.

On attendance specifically, I think that, when I was first appointed, I received weekly updates; those are now fortnightly updates. In the first few weeks of my appointment—we have discussed this in the chamber—we touched on the variance in relation to certain groups after the pandemic. We were seeing dips in attendance in year groups that were transitioning during lockdown, whether that was from primary 7 to secondary or during the transition from broad general education to the senior secondary phase. At the time, we were of the view that those young people had had really important periods of their education disrupted and had then found it very hard to re-engage with the system.

Last year, I commissioned Education Scotland to undertake further work on absence. It published national guidance on that in November, which the committee might be aware of, and we then published further data in December that showed that school absence across the board was at record low levels. It is important for the committee to understand that.

The new measure that we have introduced is about persistent absence—10 per cent absence in a school year of, I think, 190 days, so let us say 20 days a year of missed education. That is a big chunk of your education to lose.

With regard to engagement with other portfolios, I have not specifically engaged with other portfolios on attendance, but I have engaged with them on behaviour and on a number of other educational issues, and I will engage with my colleagues on the issue of absence, because, of course, it is not just about school.

First, I very much welcome the committee’s inquiry, given that we are halfway through the ASL action plan. We will update that in the coming weeks, and we intend to learn from the committee’s output and use that learning to inform that process. In recent weeks, I have been considering a number of points that the committee has looked at, and I will touch on some of them now.

Some of the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the funding of ASL has been important, particularly the commentary from Audit Scotland, which talked about the current approach being not just a local authority question. We often think of ASN as existing in an education silo and believe that it is for education budgets to mop up the need. However, that is not the case.

We also need to be more mindful of different budgetary requirements and how we can be more holistic in that provision, so that our young people are better supported. I know that that point was also made by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which talked about how we could do that more holistically and not have a fight over funding. I am mindful of that point, because, fundamentally, our approach must be about getting it right for every child. Using GIRFEC as our measure, we need to reflect better on how that funding works on the ground. I know that the committee has taken evidence on how that can be fragmented in relation to delivery.

Those are two examples of things that jumped out at me in relation to funding, in particular, but I also note that the committee has heard about a number of other areas, such as the design of school buildings and how that can impact on additional support needs, and, more broadly, the way in which the pandemic has changed our education system. I am mindful that, as the committee knows, I will need to formally respond to the Hayward review in the coming weeks, and we must be mindful of the increase in additional support needs in that context and of the challenges in relation to behaviour. As Mr Kerr knows, the challenge that we face right now is attendance. All of those factors have been compounded since the pandemic.

Fundamentally, the educational offering now is completely different from the situation that pertained when we passed the 2004 act. As Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I am keen to hear the committee’s views on the evidence that you have taken, and I think that we can better reflect what you have to say in our updated ASL action plan. We have made progress on that, but I know that the committee will want to talk about some of the specifics around what it looks like in practice.

Yes.

Are you talking about specialist schools?

I was struck by the evidence that the committee took from the tribunal president on that. Overall, I agree with the position that was set out. The legislation relating to the presumption of mainstreaming predates the 2004 act; the right to mainstream education for those with an additional support need is enshrined in legislation.

In 2019, we published revised guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming, which is clear on the responsibilities on local authorities in weighing up their decisions in relation to tribunals. If there is any doubt about the suitability of mainstream provision, it is the role of the local authority to use the legislation to weigh up the measures. I was quite taken with the evidence that the committee took from the tribunal president, and we will seek to engage with her directly on the matter, particularly with regard to updating the 2004 act.

I have talked to Ms Duncan-Glancy about the range of options that are open to parents and carers before getting to the tribunal phase. It feels as though there is currently a weighting towards the tribunal phase, which is out of sync with where we should be in relation to that option. I am keen to engage with the tribunal president directly on that point.

I think that schools have evolved. I know of a number in my constituency that have a department of additional support, and parents will opt to send their child to that school because they presume that it has better provision for their child. We need to be mindful of that at national level, because local authorities are responding to local needs in respect of ASN, and they are putting in place specialist provision.

Again, I highlight that there are opportunities through the ASL action plan for us to work with local authorities. I do not want to dictate to local authorities, but I see an opportunity for us to firm up some of the guidance on how mainstream support might look.

When I first started teaching, which was a long time ago now, we had a department for support for learning, and we also had a behaviour support department. There was a completely different approach to supporting those with additional support needs. Over a number of years, we have moved to ASN being included in how teachers support their children and young people, but we also need to recognise the role of pupil support assistants and behaviour support assistants, which is why we protect that additional funding through ring fencing it.