Chamber and committees

I am very grateful to you all.

Good morning, Mr Withers. On a similar topic, one of your structural recommendations was the establishment of a single funding body that would cover SDS, the Scottish Funding Council and, potentially, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. I think you said that the rationale for that was a “fragmented” system at the moment that impacts the ability of providers to deliver. What are the risks of not going forward with a single funding body?

Thank you. What Peter Bain said does answer my question, and I am very grateful.

I will move to Pauline Walker on the same question, but I will direct a short supplementary question to her as well: if the secondary school changes the curriculum—if it does the sort of thing that Peter Bain talked about—how do you ensure that the primary schools are dovetailing sufficiently with those changes?

Thank you.

Graham Hutton, the initial question was about how schools decide on the number and range of subjects, which I know is a subject on which you want to contribute. When you do that, there is another question that I would like you to respond to. The committee has heard about the Finnish system, which seems to have a great deal of autonomy in its decision making, yet at the same time, the Finnish Government is more prescriptive about certain aspects.

Given what we have already heard and what you are about to tell us, is there more scope for consistency on what should be taught in schools—the Finnish system, for example, prescribes core subjects and a minimum time—while allowing for the flexibility that we have heard about?

I am grateful for the detail.

The committee has been alerted to another risk. Universities Scotland gave us a very useful submission, in which it suggested that, with a single funding body, there could be a risk to the status and autonomy of universities and their Office for National Statistics classification. It would have exactly the opposite effect in that it would restrict universities’ ability to respond to needs. Were you aware of that risk when you made your recommendation? If so, why did you nevertheless make the recommendation? If not, does that cause you to reflect on whether it is the right recommendation?

Dr Brown, you talked earlier about what we value and what our aspirations might be in and for the education system in Scotland. Do you take a view on how the performance of the education system should be measured at both a local and national level? Should we move from individual accountability to a more collective responsibility, as Professor Chapman has argued?

Unless any of the other panellists want to respond on any of those questions, I will hand back to the convener.

Dr Shapira, you talked earlier about teacher capacity. There has been a lot of talk about that down the years. We have in our papers a reference to a 2013 study about improving the capacity of teachers and the necessity for it, at an individual level and at a structural and cultural level. Looking backwards, can you describe how effective efforts have been to improve the capacity of teachers? Looking forwards, where should the focus be to improve capacity in the system, particularly if, as Professor Stobart said, what must not happen is adding without taking away?

Good morning, panel. Professor Humes, picking up on comments that you made earlier, the OECD has suggested that the Scottish system might be too heavily governed. Do you recognise that as an issue? If so, how does it square, if at all, with the principle of subsidiarity, which you described earlier as decisions being made at the lowest suitable level and which is core to curriculum for excellence?

Out of interest, why did you take the lower end of the scale? Why did you not come to the committee with data that would enable us to say, “That’s what we’re going to need and we can rely on that”? By taking the lower end, have you not instilled a lack of confidence in the committee with regard to its ability to scrutinise?