Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government does not support a compulsory redundancy policy, and that is the view that we take across our executive agencies. Colleges, however, do not sit in that space. The suggestion that that money might have been used to protect a voluntary redundancy policy was not something that came across my desk and was certainly not part of the consideration of how we were going to use it.

The funding is being used to support the teachers’ pay deal. I think that members will be aware of that—they will have heard Mr Dey say so earlier this year—and we need to recognise that funding for that pay deal had to come from somewhere in the education budget. The education secretary prior to my appointment made that message very clear.

I am not familiar with the point that the member makes about voluntary redundancies. I recognise that there are challenges in the sector with regard to redundancies and industrial action, and we need to work with the sector. I have engaged with the trade unions on that and with College Employers Scotland.

Stephen Pathirana might wish to say more on transition funding per se. My understanding is that it was to be transition funding and that it was not predicated on staff employment.

I think that it absolutely should allow them to do that. I point out, however, that that goes back to the Verity house agreement, and COSLA has a clear role to play in that regard. Of course, provision should be accessible to parents where they need it at the current time. Those boundaries, or borders, should not preclude parents from accessing childcare where they need it, and I recognise some of the challenges in that regard at present. That is why the engagement with COSLA on the issue as part of the Verity house agreement is hugely important.

The convener raises important points on closing the attainment gap and attendance, an issue that has concerned me since my appointment at the end of March. We have seen a narrowing of the gap since 2019; the most recent exam results from this academic year show that. It is important that we compare this academic year with 2019 as the closest possible barometer of comparison, given that, during the pandemic, the Scottish Qualifications Authority removed the normal course requirements for qualifications and replaced them with a different measure, using teacher judgment, which I know the committee will be familiar with. Our closest barometer of measurement is 2019, and the comparison shows that we are making progress in closing the gap in relation to exam results.

The achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data on literacy and numeracy in primary 7 showed last December the biggest amount of progress that we have seen since records began. The most up-to-date data on ACEL for primary 7 will be published in December, and the committee will want to look closely at that—as I certainly will.

On issues surrounding attendance more broadly, I receive fortnightly updates on the national picture of attendance, and they concern me. Members will have heard me say in the chamber that certain year groups seem to have challenges in relation to their school attendance. It appears to me that those are the year groups that went through a transitional period in their education during the pandemic. Whether that was, for example, pupils in primary 7 or those in secondary 3, there are gaps in attendance in certain year groups.

To that end, I have asked Education Scotland to look at the issue in more depth and provide me with further advice, which will be forthcoming later in the month. I would be happy to share that advice and any recommendations with the committee, recognising that managing attendance is a matter for local authorities. I know that some local authorities use their PEF to improve attendance and attainment, for which it can be a valuable tool, but, aside from that, local authorities have a responsibility in relation to attendance.

I was very worried after some of my school visits, because I heard about care-experienced young people not attending school because of their experiences during the pandemic. It concerns me that those young people are not attending and that, as a result, their educational needs might not be being met.

We need to be mindful—as, I know, the committee is—of the impacts of the pandemic on schools. Those impacts did not just disappear after the last lockdown. They changed behaviour, the way in which our young people interact with the education system and the way in which parents engage with teachers. We need to be mindful of that and sensitive to it, particularly in relation to attendance.

As the cabinet secretary, I am fearful that a cohort of young people have had their education disrupted by Covid and by industrial action. We need to engage those young people fully in their education to improve their outcomes, which is why improving attendance is key.

Absolutely, convener. I am being reminded that Liz Sommerville from Education Scotland is here. I will bring in Liz, who is working on the deep dive that Education Scotland is preparing. The work on engaging the college sector in our schools, to which you allude, is fundamental to providing different pathways for young people and getting them to re-engage with the education system if there has been disengagement due to the pandemic and an impact on attendance.

I do not agree with what Ms Duncan-Glancy has just intimated. The gap for national 5s and highers is narrower than it was in 2019. That is our closest barometer of measurement. If the suggestion is that we compare this year’s results with those in 2022, I do not accept that, because the course qualification requirements for 2022 do not match up to the course qualification requirements today.

We will need to address that. The retention of staff in the PVI sector is important. As you alluded to, Mr Rennie, the First Minister spoke about that a lot during the recent leadership contest that took place in my party, but it is also central to his vision and his approach to Government that we expand childcare, because he recognises that that is about not only providing childcare but growing a wellbeing economy and, often, about freeing up mums to go back to work. We need to recognise the wider impacts.

The member made a point in relation to the budget, and we will need to look at how we can retain staff in the PVI sector, because—as I said in my opening response to Mr Rennie—those staff are crucial to delivering the expansion of ELC; we cannot do it without them.

I do not know whether Eleanor Passmore has anything to add specifically in relation to experienced staff.

What I understand from the negotiations as they are currently progressing—again, I put on the record that I am not involved in the negotiations; my interest in the matter is very much in maintaining the continuity of education provision—is that £30 million of resource is going to be reprofiled from 2024-25 with the local government attainment grant, which was formerly PEF. That will simply align the funding with the academic year as opposed to the financial year in planned spending by schools.

The important point in all this is that there will be no detriment to funding at a school level. I have been clear on that, in terms of my responsibilities. The reprofiling will not impact on the availability of funding at the local level. It has, as I understand it—again, I point out that I am not engaged in the negotiations—been part of the decision making around the current offer that is on the table.

I do not have the details in front of me.

I think that that relates to the local government pay deal as opposed to the teachers’ pay deal.

Yes. Pam Duncan-Glancy has raised a really important point. Obviously, negotiations are on-going and I am not involved in them, but I am very clear that there must not be detriment to schools, which the member alluded to in relation to those negotiations. The funding was promised on a four-year cycle. It must come to schools and directly to headteachers, who have the power to make a difference in their school setting.

In relation to my responsibilities as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I reassure Pam Duncan-Glancy that longer-term planning in relation to the funding is vital, and it is why PEF is making a difference right now in our schools. There not being detriment to the levels of funding that are available at school level is absolutely imperative, in my view.