Chamber and committees

It is just about additional support needs support staff or ASN assistants—the job title varies massively, and that is the point of my question. A couple of years ago, the Government statisticians who compiled the school staff census merged the categories of “classroom assistant” and “ASN assistant” into “pupil support assistant”. Our predecessor committee in that session brought them in to give evidence on that. Essentially, they said that there was no longer enough distinction in many settings between a general classroom assistant and somebody assigned to work specifically with kids with additional support needs, so they were unable to give us numbers on how many ASN assistants there were. Does it present a challenge for you that we are unable to count how many support staff work directly with children with additional needs rather than providing general support to the whole class?

On that last issue, there is an important point about whether we support kids with ASN either in mainstream or special education. Do you feel that, at the moment, in some cases at least, that is coming down to a question of resource and that there are children in mainstream education because of the lack of capacity in special educational settings? I recognise that there are two points here. The first is where the judgment is made that the child with additional support needs would thrive more in a mainstream setting. However, secondly, on the basis of what we get in our inboxes, there is the implication that local authorities are putting kids with more complex additional needs who would be better off in special educational settings into mainstream settings due to a lack of resource.

I will press you on that a little bit, because that is really helpful. In that case, what is your expectation for 2024-25? Is it just the in-year transfer flexibility that you referenced, or are you expecting some, but not all, of the currently ring-fenced funds to become flexible and go into the general grant?

I am incredibly enthusiastic about the whole package of reform that you have proposed. It is probably fair to say that the element that has captured public attention the most is the question about the status of high-stakes end-of-term exams and alternative assessment methods. You have not prescribed exactly what those alternative methods would be when it comes to what continuous assessment, et cetera, might look like.

To illustrate the options, I will pick Ken Muir’s subject. Five years from now, if a 16-year-old were to take geography, what could that assessment look like? If it is not the high-stakes end-of-term exam model, what might that experience be and what options are available?

You mentioned some of the potential new elements. Touching on what you said at the start of your answer, to what extent will it also be about recognising work that is already taking place? For example, you mentioned some of the assessment project work that is already happening in geography but does not currently count towards the final grade that a young person gets. How much of it is simply about bringing that into the mix of what makes up the collective assessment for their final grade? That would address some of the perfectly legitimate concerns that teachers have about workload, for example. It is about not just adding new stuff but recognising some of the good work that goes on that does not currently make up what decides the grade and what goes on the SQA certificate at the end of the year.

That would be useful. Thank you.

Thanks.

My next question touches on Willie Rennie’s line of questioning on the SQA and is about how this is taken forward and what specific proposals are adopted in taking forward your recommendations. I will ask a two-part question, because one part is a bit provocative and you might not want to answer it. How credible can the approach be if the SQA in its current form takes a lead on making decisions about what the new models of assessment might look like and what the balance of assessment might be?

You might want to sidestep that—although I urge you not to—so I will ask a general question. Who should Government involve in the next step of making those specific decisions on the balance of assessment and the models of assessment for each course, on the basis of your recommendations?

Professor Muir, you deserve a lot of credit for being one of the driving forces behind the organisational reform that is taking place, but, realistically, we are probably three to four years away from having the new qualifications body established, bedded in and operational. I presume that you would not want us to wait until we have the new body—hopefully, with its new culture—before engaging in the implementation of the recommendations. That leaves us with the question of the current SQA and its role in taking this forward.

Sticking with you first, Professor Heald—although I am interested in others’ views—it is easy for us to get stuck in a chorus of despair about this. We all acknowledge that we face the greatest financial challenge so far in devolution’s short history but, at the same time, as you have all mentioned, particularly Professor Bell, we have really ambitious targets for hitting net zero, lifting children out of poverty and so on. Inevitably, substantial increases in spending will be required if we are to stand any chance of hitting those targets, whether for net zero or child poverty. Even if we were very committed to a laissez-faire free-market economic model, we do not have enough time left, on net zero in particular, to find out whether that would work, because we have such a limited period.

You have all identified serious challenges to raising additional revenue through taxation, and the opportunities for us to cut spending elsewhere are extremely limited in the context of the Scottish budget. It is therefore hard not to feel as though you are edging us towards acknowledging that the targets and objectives that the Government has set are not realistic with the financial resources available to us. Is that fair?