Chamber and committees

Yes.

My rebuttal to Mr Rennie relates to how we quantify the poverty-related attainment gap and the role of schools. We have a huge programme and a commitment to investing significant amounts of public money in closing the gap, but schools can do only so much. On average, our children spend about 20 per cent of their time in school and 80 per cent at home. In that mix, we may need to remember the limitations on schools when it comes to some of the work on closing the gap.

On Mr Rennie’s second point, it is in improving performance that I think we can make a real difference in how we invest in our teachers. We did that last year through the pay deal. We need to do more work on that, as we heard earlier, and I am sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will talk about that, too, in relation to class contact time. We really need to invest in the profession, recognising their role in driving improvement. Teachers will be key to ensuring that we get to where we need to be in relation to improvement.

Mr Rennie talks about a tension between substantial reform, the various bodies and all the reports that I have on my desk. We will come to the chamber in a few weeks’ time for a wider debate on qualifications, and I am keen to hear views from members on that. I am really struck, however, by the amount of pressure that the education system is under, particularly our secondary schools.

The committee will reflect on the fact that it is only this year, following the pandemic, that the SQA has reintroduced some of the qualification requirements that existed before Covid. Some of our young people have never had to sit any internal assessments or do the assignments that might sit alongside them, and they are suddenly being asked to do all those extra things. Many teachers might not have previously delivered some of that course content, because the SQA stripped it out. Therefore, I need to measure and balance carefully the changes that are coming in the future with the current reality, which, as we will hear in the chamber this afternoon, is challenging.

I do not know the answer to that—I will defer to Mr Anson on the subject—but I think that that would be our expectation.

I am very happy to do so. Ms Duncan-Glancy mentioned a pupil teacher ratio of 13.7. Scotland has the lowest pupil teacher ratio in the whole of the UK, which is welcome. That means that we have the most teachers per pupil in the whole of the UK.

I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy is asking about the £145.5 million of additionality that we baked into the local government settlement that was meant to be for additional teachers in the system. It is fair to say that some local authorities have used that for protecting teacher numbers. Again, I praise those local authorities, especially the heads of education and council leaders who have said that they will use that ring fencing to protect the number of teachers in schools, because we know that teachers make a difference—that is how we improve outcomes for our young people. We cannot close the poverty-related attainment gap with fewer teachers in our schools.

However, some local authorities have taken other decisions, for a number of reasons. I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy mentioned a figure of 15. In some of those cases, teacher numbers have gone down by one or two, so we should probably not consider them in the round. From memory, I think that there has been a significant fall in teacher numbers in four or five authorities. I have asked all those authorities for an explanation as to why that might be the case. I have not yet made a decision on that challenge, but I retain the right to recoup some of the funding.

It is worth saying that, as far as I remember—Sam Anson will correct me if I am wrong—we administer the £145 million in such a way that we hold some of it back so that, if a local authority does not meet the requirement to ring fence that funding for teacher numbers, we will not pay it out. I retain the power to do that and to hold on to that additional funding.

Under curriculum for excellence, we do not have a prescriptive curriculum. We might come on to talk about some of the challenge in relation to what that means for particular subjects. However, there is flexibility in the broad general education because, essentially, the theory of CFE allows teachers and local decision makers—headteachers—to decide on the curriculum content for their local context.

You asked about specific guidance. Education Scotland has a role to play in providing such guidance. Sometimes, the challenge for Government is not that we need more guidance but that we need more prescription. Towards the end of last year, I was listening to some of the critique around PISA. Some people advocate bringing much more prescription back to the curriculum in Scotland and some say that there has been too much flexibility.

We need to balance that very carefully. That is why I have committed to the curriculum improvement cycle, starting with maths education. The fact that we are starting with maths is predicated on the PISA results, but it also relates to consideration of some of last year’s national 5 maths examination results. We need to improve the delivery of the maths curriculum. We will then move on to look at English and literacy more broadly.

Education Scotland can provide explicit guidance, but my question to the committee—and this is an issue for us to consider in the wider debate about qualifications reform—is whether that is what the system is looking for. Is the system looking for explicit guidance or is it looking for prescription? The way in which we deliver CFE is such that we do not prescribe curriculum content, but some people advocate that we should have a level of prescription.

There is a tension between the founding principles of curriculum for excellence and how it operates as a curriculum, but perhaps we need to consider those issues in the context of the broader mix of qualifications reform. I am keen to hear views on that, because some people in the system say that we have gone too far in relation to flexibility, and that what teachers are looking for is a bit more prescription and direction to help them to set out the learning outcomes for their young people.

I thank Ms Callaghan for her question. She will know that we prioritise support for wellbeing in our schools through the provision of counsellors in every secondary school and through the expectation in curriculum for excellence that wellbeing is a responsibility for all. All teachers have a responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of their young people.

Ms Callaghan spoke about anxiety, particularly among our young people. I am always struck by the fact that, although the pandemic had an impact on us all, our young people were particularly affected. Their brain development has been impacted by a change in how they consume information. We have had great debates in the chamber in recent times about the use of mobile phones; I saw some members on their phones earlier on, during the budget discussion.

We need to be mindful of the fact that the way in which our young people consume information—indeed, the way in which we all consume information—has changed, which can lead to an increase in anxiety. We need to look at the issue in a bit more detail. Part of the challenge in relation to behaviour and changes in behaviour is informed by an increasing sense of anxiety and worry. Last year, some evidence was published that showed that our young people felt safe returning to school after the pandemic—was that in PISA?

Yes, the SQA is feeding in to that. On the member’s point—he can correct me if I am wrong—when I assumed post, I wanted to introduce an element of objectivity into the process, because the previous critique of the Government was that we should not allow organisations to reform themselves, which I accept. That is why we have made changes to the governance approach, including by bringing some of Mr Dey’s work into the same space and my chairing a board in which the organisations that have to reform all come together. That may give some answer to the member’s question.

The organisation will not disappear, because there will still need to be a qualifications organisation, and we will still need a body to run and administer our qualifications, so it has to feed into the process. However, on the wider point—and, I suppose, the cultural shift—the organisation needs to become more fleet of foot, from my experience. That is why we will embed teacher voice and learner voice in the governance structures, because the organisation needs to listen to the profession. I am keen to work with the organisation on how we take that forward.

I will defer to Sam Anson on the role that the PTR plays in our calculation—it might be that we factor that in. In my correspondence with local authorities, I have asked them to set out any extenuating circumstances that might explain the situation. For some, there might be a rationale. I have heard responses from local authorities that account for some of the change. We need to be mindful of that, but there have been other reductions in the system that I do not find to be acceptable, particularly when, at a time of extreme financial pressure, we are providing that additionality and protecting it. We expect teacher numbers to be protected in all local authorities.

We would expect to see details of that additionality in their returns. Last year, the committee took evidence on this point from someone, who shall remain nameless, who talked about the role of teachers and other professionals in education being important. I do not think that we can replace a teacher in a classroom with people who are not trained teachers, so we need to be mindful of that.

In an arrangement between the Government and COSLA, we agreed that the additionality would be protected for teacher numbers—that is what our local authorities signed up to deliver. They understood the rationale behind the approach and the requirements around the funding. That is why I have the opportunity to hold back some of the funding at a certain point in the financial year. Some local authorities might not have thought that we would do that, because it did not happen last year, but I retain the power to do so.

We will look in detail at the four or five instances in which there have been significant falls in the numbers. In some of the local authorities that Ms Duncan-Glancy mentioned, from memory, we are talking about falls of one or two. We should look at those instances, but we will look in detail at where we have seen greater falls.

Ms Duncan-Glancy makes a point about other areas where the money might have been spent. I am happy to hear that rationale. We set out the requirements, and we will look at the responses in detail, recognising that, for all local authorities, this has been a challenging time, just as it has been for Government.

Tentatively I would say yes, but we need to work together more closely. It is fair to say that, in the past, Government and local government have sometimes had our challenges, some of which I have just rehearsed with Ms Duncan-Glancy around teacher numbers.

However, in my experience, COSLA has a pragmatic approach to the delivery of education at the local authority level. It wants to be transparent about what that means for the outcomes for our young people and wants to support the improvement of those outcomes.

It is my job, as cabinet secretary, to give local authorities the opportunity to deliver on those improvements in order to help our young people to succeed. We have reset some of the relationship with local government. I am not sure that I can give the committee a scorecard at the end of this year but, if Mr Kidd comes back to me next year, I will give him a mark out of 10 on how we have improved that relationship. Particularly, it is not just about having improved relationships but about working better to improve outcomes. That is why the accountability framework that we are working on with local authorities—particularly in relation to the variability across the school education system—is hugely important.