Chamber and committees

Many of the considerations on accreditation pre-date my time in office, but I know that a range of proposals were considered at the time—moving accreditation to the SCQF was one. There were other proposals on moving it out of the body completely or creating a new one. I do not think that we are in the financial market for creating new bodies, at the current time. However, for example, consideration was given to the Scottish Funding Council doing accreditation, moving it to the new inspectorate or to Education Scotland, or moving it within qualifications Scotland with increased separation.

On the point that Mr Kerr made at the start, we have to be mindful of wider education reform work. I am aware that next door to my office is Mr Dey, who is leading on all the post-school reform work. Accreditation affects him, too. I am taking forward the bill in this parliamentary year and Mr Dey will be working on reform of post-school education next year. The work on accreditation cuts across both, so it is really important that we get our approach right. The committee heard evidence from Fiona Robertson on that. She is exploring that aspect through our short-life working group, which is considering the role of quality assurance across education and in our qualifications system.

Clare, do you want to come in on that?

I will not add to that, but Mr Rennie might want to come back in.

It is. That degree of flexibility is already happening. As the committee might be aware, Janie McManus’s team is currently leading on work to inspect the improvement function of our local authorities. I have a concern that, in some parts of Scotland, there might not be the support that should exist. Ms McManus is leading on that work, and it is really important. Now that we are recovering from the pandemic, we are looking at the post-pandemic attainment gap and all the challenges that exist in schools, and I need to be sure that our local authorities have the mechanisms in place to help to support our schools. That is not about inspecting establishments—it is about inspecting local authorities’ improvement functions.

I think that the committee also heard evidence from Graham Donaldson on initial teacher education. The inspectorate has the power to inspect that, but it has never been used. However, I am interested in that because, although we do not often debate initial teacher education in the chamber—it does not get the parliamentary coverage that it should—it is integral to delivering quality learning and teaching.

The inspectorate is also carrying out a thematic review of behaviour in Scotland’s schools and a thematic view of maths in relation to numeracy across the curriculum. It does not always narrowly examine institutions through school reports; it can also look across the piece at a range of issues. It is already undertaking that work, and I foresee that being the case in the future, too.

If committee members are of the view that we should stipulate that, I am open to listening to that, but the policy memorandum gives us a bit of—

I have heard some of the teaching trade unions’ views on that issue. It is worth saying that we have increased the number of teachers to four teaching and college professionals. We reflected and wanted to make sure that there was substantive teacher voice in the new body. It is important that we listen to other stakeholders, as Mr Adam set out. Scottish education is always about partnership working, and parents are a key component of that, so it is important that their voice is heard, too.

The trade unions’ view is that we have stipulated four members, and that that does not stipulate a majority. However, it is not as though we have said, “This is the maximum and there cannot be any more.” Others who come from a teaching background may have experience in corporate governance and fulfil other positions on that body. There are still opportunities for teachers to engage outwith the four that we have stipulated.

Michelle Thomson touches on an important issue. If the committee wishes, I can rehearse all the statistics that I have at my fingertips on Government investment in education, but the substantive point that the member makes is this: given that there is additionality in relation to spend per pupil and pupil support assistants, data on which was published yesterday, why is the need so great?

Part of the issue relates to the fact that, in 2010, as the committee knows, we changed the way in which we measure additional support needs, which has led to some increase in the numbers. However, other external factors are driving an increase in the number of additional support needs pupils. For example, I think that just over 5 per cent of the figure is accounted for by pupils who have English as an additional language, and there are wider factors around the increase, which the committee might be aware of.

More generally—I might have made this point to the committee last year—I note that, as one headteacher put it to me, during the pandemic, when other services stepped back, schools stepped up. I think that schools are now filling a void that other services have historically filled. That adds to the growing feeling that the system is under an inordinate amount of pressure. In the past—even 10 or 15 years ago—schools were very focused on providing education. I know that members are aware of this, because they spend a lot of time visiting schools in their constituencies, but schools now provide services that they did not provide five or 10 years ago. Part of the pressure that the system faces comes from that broader approach to the role of school education, with some schools providing community support that they did not provide in the past.

There are a range of things that the Government can do in. To some extent, my answer goes back to Mr Kerr’s point about whether responsibility sits at a local or national level. One of the things that the Government can do is ring fence. The committee might want to push me on this point, but I think that, in recent times, the Government has taken a principled stance on ring fencing teacher numbers and teacher funding. Because of the additional £145 million that has been invested, there has been, as the statistics published yesterday show, an increase in pupil support assistants—the additionality is for those, too.

There are actions that the Government can take centrally to protect funding for certain areas. Others might disagree with that approach, but I think that it is important in protecting inputs—and, indeed, outputs, because we know that, if we have more staff in the system, we help to improve outcomes for our children and young people.

More broadly, as I alluded to in my opening commentary, the additional support for learning action plan tells a good story of the progress that we have made. Laura Meikle might want to talk about some of the specifics around that. We are not where we should be, partly because of the pandemic, but it is important to recognise that we have been able to make key progress in a number of different areas.

I will touch on a final point. We have mentioned education reform. The committee will know that, in the coming weeks and months, I will be bringing forward legislation on a range of new bodies that will replace the current examinations body and Education Scotland, and that the inspectorate function will come out of that. I invite members to consider the role of those bodies in supporting young people with additional support needs. I know that the committee has taken evidence on the support that is currently available from Education Scotland. My question is this: in the new and challenging post-pandemic education world that we are all living in, could that support be better provided? There is an opportunity for the proposed centre for teaching excellence to deliver some of that support.

I will bring in Laura Meikle to talk about some of the specifics of the ASL action plan.

Indeed it does.

No parent or carer should have to fight for the rights that their children are entitled to under the 2004 act—they should have that support. That is my starting point. After all, as well as being the education secretary, I am a constituency MSP. I am sure that you all receive constituency correspondence on such issues, as I do in my local capacity.

At a national level, I will reflect on the evidence that the committee has taken on the role of the tribunal. The tribunal should be the backstop; it is the last place where we want parents to end up. They should not have to go there, because a number of other remedies are open to them to consider with regard to resolving challenges with their local authority over support for their child. For a start, they can make a complaint to the local authority, and there are also the options of mediation and independent adjudication.

A number of interventions can be taken before the tribunal stage, and, through the ASL action plan, there is an opportunity for us to be clearer about them to ensure that parents know about them and their rights and that they should not have to escalate their case to the tribunal. We might come back to that issue, but the action plan will improve everyone’s understanding.

I should also say that there is the opportunity, under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, for parents and carers to escalate their case to me. That happens very rarely, but that option is open to them. The point is that we do not want parents to have to go through the tribunal process, because it is extraordinarily stressful and is not good for the young person. It would be much better if we could resolve the issues at local authority level.

I will continue to work with COSLA on the matter. When I meet it today as part of the SAGRABIS work, we will undoubtedly touch on the ASL action plan.

Again, that is a matter for the local authority in question. I note that, as an MSP, I receive similar correspondence on these issues, and part of the challenge—I made this point to Ms Duncan-Glancy—concerns the options that are open to parents and carers.

It is worth saying that we fund advocacy services to work with parents to make them aware of their rights in this space. However, the landscape is currently a bit cluttered, and I think that the ASL action plan will allow us to pull together some of the advice for parents and carers so that they know what their rights are. Equally, we need to work with COSLA and with individual local authorities, because we do not want to get to the tribunal stage. A number of interventions can be made—for example, mediation is often a really good way of resolving some of the challenges. Parents should not be having to escalate their case to the tribunal process, which can cause them—and, of course, their child—a great deal of stress.