Chamber and committees

I have one final question, which is a bit of a two-parter. I go back to Bob Doris’s line of questioning about the new guidance around annual reporting to parent councils, but also to his questions around longitudinal studies, which I think are very important.

On one level, I think that it is a very good idea to make sure that there is a clear expectation of local accountability through, for example, those annual reports. However, there is a bit of me that is concerned that that then creates an expectation that we can and should be able to measure the impact of some of this stuff within a year, whereas we have spent quite a lot of this morning talking about the fact that, whether over a year or even an entire parliamentary session, we cannot close the poverty-related attainment gap in such a short period of time.

I am interested in your reflections on how we get that balance right between making sure that there is robust local accountability and not creating unrealistic expectations, whether among parents or at local authority level or, indeed, at the parliamentary or national level.

I am most interested in your thoughts on where responsibility for longitudinal studies should lie. Is that something that schools, clusters, local authorities or RICs should be doing, or should it be done nationally by Education Scotland, or even directly by the Government? Where is the most appropriate place for longitudinal evaluation to be organised? We will start with Jim Thewliss.

On the second question about responsibility for longitudinal work, we could do a national study and Education Scotland could be responsible for that, but are there levels beneath that where you think that such a study would be appropriate?

Thank you very much. Before I bring in Mr Corbett, I point out that he was my English teacher—I do not think that I mentioned that at the previous committee meeting—so if any colleagues have complaints about my approach to Scottish education, they can take that up with him after the meeting. [Laughter.]

You again mentioned what you said at the start of the meeting about the difference between attainment and achievement, and about ensuring that we get the wider measures of achievement right. My question is similar to the one that I asked a moment ago. Are you aware of any local authorities that are taking that more rounded, achievement-based approach, or is the picture still pretty consistent across the country, in so far as we are consistently being too narrow by looking just at attainment?

I should say that I am sure Aberdeen City Council is absolutely nailing it. Mr Lumsden can confirm that later on. [Laughter.]

Jennifer Henderson made an interesting point a moment ago about the role of corporate boards. I have mentioned in committee a few times that there seems, particularly in the public sector in Scotland, to be quite a wide spectrum of understanding among board members about the role of the board of a public body. Is the role about scrutinising policy, decision making, strategic direction setting and so on, or is it purely about corporate governance, including human resources practices and so on? Did you find, among the board members to whom you spoke, a wide spectrum of opinion about their role in the process, or is there some consistency—whether good or bad?

Given that we have established this morning that Parliament needs to step up its work, are there any local authorities that you can highlight as being particularly strong examples of embedding the work. I ask that particularly in relation to democratic scrutiny. Is there a local authority where the elected members are engaged in making sure that embedding the NPF is guiding their work and the work of their partners?

I would like to stick with the role of Parliament. I have the impression that we parliamentarians are perhaps a bit less pessimistic about the role that we have collectively played in the NPF.

I am interested in the feedback from the organisations that you spoke to. Did any of them—in particular, those that have made sure that they have embedded the NPF in their practice—refer to the idea that Parliament scrutinising them specifically on that was playing a role in their embedding it successfully?

I thought that that would be the case. That is informative. You mentioned a number of organisations that make a clear link between NPF indicators, corporate plans, strategy documents and so on. Not all have done that, but some have.

Of those that have, are there two subgroups—one being those that have genuinely built corporate plans and strategies around NPF outcomes, and the other being those that have come up with corporate plans and strategies and then worked backwards and said, “Somebody needs to go through this and find a couple of indicators that tick these boxes, then include that in the foreword”? If I am categorising them correctly by broadly grouping them into those two types, what was the balance? Of the organisations that included the NPF in their corporate plans, how many had genuinely followed the correct process, as opposed to having worked backwards to tick boxes?

That is an excellent example of what I was going to ask in my final question. There might be other examples that you wish to give. I am particularly keen that we ensure that the outcome of the process is not just a burst, in the next couple of years, of understanding and enthusiasm for the NPF, then five or 10 years from now, when all the individuals involved have moved on to different positions, we have to start the process all over again. How do we make sure—induction, which you talked about, seems to be the key—that the NPF is embedded permanently in structures and practice, and that there is not just a temporary change in culture, depending on personnel turnover?

Excellent. Thank you. That is all from me, deputy convener.