Chamber and committees

No. I do not think that if you change structures you change culture. You must do both. Part of that is about embedding learner and teacher voices in the organisation, which is a new approach. For example, we have looked to increase the number of teachers who are represented in the structure. It is really important that practising teachers are involved in the governance arrangements, because it will bring credibility to the organisation.

People are important, too. In my opening statement, I talked about the comment of a secondary headteacher coming into the organisation, which was quite deliberate. It sends a message to the wider education system that we trust Scotland’s teachers to deliver on the qualification improvements. I want teachers to be empowered to lead the change that we need. I have made that happen through the curriculum improvement approach, with the appointment of Andy Brown as the national maths specialist, who is a secondary headteacher and a maths teacher.

I want to replicate exactly the same approach in qualifications Scotland. Having a secondary headteacher with the knowledge and understanding of delivering qualifications in a secondary school is really important. We need to see more of that in how the new qualifications body works, so that we are using the expertise of the people who work in our classrooms at the chalkface every day to drive the improvements that we need.

For too long—I know that the committee has heard this, not just in recent weeks but in the previous session—it has felt as though the qualifications body has been distanced from the profession. We need to see that closer working, which is part of the reason why I brought in the secondary school headteacher, but I do not see that as an end point. We must continue to change and evolve the culture. Throughout the process, we are looking at how we can better embed the teacher voice and the learner voice. The setting up of committees is part of that, as is the new chair appointment that I alluded to in my response to Mr Kerr.

During the next five years, we will have established new governance structures through the committees that Clare Hicks spoke about. Embedding them in governance structures is important. Having their voices as part of the way in which the organisations—particularly qualifications Scotland—work will be hugely important to driving a difference.

Looking at practitioners from a teacher’s perspective, I think that the new qualifications body has to be more front footed in engaging with Scotland’s teachers. Many of the staff in the SQA have come from the classroom. Most of our markers are teachers, and they are involved in setting the national standard. We have to create new ways for teachers to be involved in the organisation. Part of that is about the secondary headteacher secondment that I spoke about. I envision an opportunity for Scotland’s teachers to engage with the organisation more directly. The governance arrangements will stipulate that qualifications Scotland should more front footed in engaging with teachers and listening to their views, which is important.

The organisation has to feel less defensive. At times, that has been a challenge. It has to work with Scotland’s teachers, our learners and their parents. It should be less about gatekeeping, as has been the perception of it, whether that is fair or otherwise, in the past.

I know the question that Mr Rennie is asking me, but we also need to be mindful that these are people’s jobs. The approach that we have taken in relation to qualifications Scotland is that people will be protected by the no compulsory redundancies policy. I hear the point that Mr Rennie is making.

I was quite taken with the evidence that the committee took on that, because I do not like the word “learner”. I think that it is really generic. We use it all the time in Scottish education because it is a bit of a catch-all term. I hear the view on that, and I am pretty sympathetic to it. I was discussing the issue with officials in advance of today’s evidence session, and I think that we will look at ways in which we might be able to better reflect it. “Learner” is a generic term, and we need to look at how we ensure that children’s voices are heard.

I am sympathetic to the point that Mr Mason makes, and we will reflect on that after the evidence session today to see what more we can do to strengthen that approach.

The member raises an interesting point. I am not against the suggestion. We will take that away and consider whether we can look again at the approach that we have adopted thus far on that issue.

I might defer to my officials on that. I think that the decision was taken prior to my time.

No—I do not think so. It is really important that the advisory council is there to challenge the chief inspector. It is not about having cosy consensus but about disrupting and challenging some of the status quo thinking around inspection. Part of that work lends itself to Janie McManus’s review of the strategic approach to inspection and how that will change in the future.

The point that I was trying to make in my earlier response is that, at the current time, there are a number of areas that we might have expected to be flagged up in inspection reports but which have not necessarily been. Perhaps our inspection reports are not looking at the right things. A number of stakeholders that the committee has heard from have a range of views on that matter, and the strategic advisory council will be helpful in providing that level of challenge.

I answered a Government-initiated question on that in June, and I set out a clearer approach for my view of Education Scotland as a body.

I should probably declare an interest as a previous employee, but Education Scotland has become an organisation that, to my mind, is involved in lots of different things in Scottish education. I have asked the chief executive to provide the sort of much more focused approach to curriculum support for the teaching profession that Learning and Teaching Scotland previously provided. We need to refocus some of the organisation’s strategic priorities to look at how it can better support the teaching profession. Historically, that is what it was all about; over time, though, it has become more about advice and guidance to the profession, and advice and guidance to teachers does not necessarily always land well. Practical support is better, and it is better if we can develop it with Scotland’s teachers.

The approach that we have used for curriculum improvement also speaks to the role of practitioners in the organisation. I know that it is a bit of a niche point, but I was a secondee to Education Scotland in 2012, when a team of us came out of school to support the development of the new qualifications. The approach to staffing had secondees coming in and out of school, and it was good for the system. It was good to get the opportunity to come out, work at national level and go back into school again.

The current approach to the staffing structure in that organisation, which Gillian Hamilton has inherited, is one of static employment. That is challenging, because it means that we need to look at the skill set that we have in the organisation. We also need to look out to the teaching profession, which is why the appointment of Andy Brown is really important for leading on numeracy. However, I want the same approach to be replicated in every curriculum area.

We need to think again about how we get teachers into that organisation. I see the centre for teaching excellence as playing a key role in that regard, by providing opportunities for folk to come out of school on short-term secondments and engage with pedagogy and practice in a way that professional development opportunities do not always allow for at local authority level.

They will not be the same organisations, because they have to change. We have spent a lot of this morning talking about what that change might be, whether it be structural, in relation to governance approaches, or whether it is cultural, in relation to how people are treated and how stakeholders are engaged with.

Obviously, a financial memorandum sits alongside the bill, so committee members will interrogate that. If there is an ask from Mr Kerr for additionality, I am happy to hear it. It might be challenging to deliver it in the current climate, but we have to consider these things in the round. We have to deliver meaningful change, and that is the challenge with this bill. The new organisation cannot be a replication of what came before.

I know that there is a range of views about the bill perhaps not satisfying everyone’s expectations. That is okay—we are at stage 1, so I will listen to views on how we can improve the legislation. However, standing still is not good enough, and I cannot deliver on the aspirations of Louise Hayward’s report unless we reform the qualifications body. The chronology is really important.

The funding is attached to the financial memorandum. Mr Kerr asked about engagement with stakeholders and how that might be better facilitated or supported financially. Again, I am happy to work with him on that. If he has strong views about our needing to reconsider the approach, we will look at what we can deliver, while recognising the challenging state of our public finances.

I think that there is a recognition in the SQA and in Education Scotland that things have to change, and they want to be part of the new change. It is not my role as cabinet secretary to talk for the staff, but in general, I would say that they are supportive of improvement and reform. However, they want to be part of it—they do not want it to be done to them—so it is important that we take them with us.