Chamber and committees

As set out in the remit agreed for the Independent Review of Curriculum for Excellence, published on 26 February 2020, the OECD has been undertaking the Review using its Implementing Policies: Supporting Change in Education Framework .

The OECD uses this framework to provide tailored support to individual countries and education systems to analyse and support the development and implementation of education policies. This methodology has been used by the OECD in previous reviews, and set a very clear framework for the Independent Review of Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland.

In terms of the OECD’s approach to evidence gathering on this Review, the OECD established a team of core OECD staff and international experts with experience in curriculum and assessment implementation. The Team began the Review with a comprehensive desk-based analysis of policy documents, evidence and research on CfE implementation, which included, amongst other documents, the initial evidence base provided by the Scottish Government in July 2020, papers published as part of the Education & Skills Committee’s Inquiry on Subject Choice and published academic articles and research.

Following this review of documentation, the OECD team conducted a series of interviews and virtual school visits to gather primary data. The first round of national stakeholder interviews took place from 28 th September - 2 nd October. During this visit the OECD met virtually with: myself, the Scottish Parliament’s Education & Skills Committee, Scottish Government officials, the Scottish Practitioner Forum, national agencies, local government representatives, college bodies, DYW regional employer groups, university bodies, academics/researchers, organisations responsible for teacher professional learning & leadership, teacher and headteacher professional associations, parent organisations, young people organisations, Gaelic education groups, subject specific interest groups, members of the Curriculum & Assessment Board, and members of the Scottish Education Council.

The second week of engagement with schools, learners and parents ran from 2 nd - 5 th November. As part of this engagement, the OECD held in-depth virtual visits with four schools, as well as a number of on-line focus group sessions with headteachers, teachers, partners, learners and parents. Both engagement weeks were taken forward based on clear guidelines provided by the OECD and following discussions with the Scottish Practitioner Forum.

In response to a request by OECD for a project advisory group to guide the work and discuss progress and deliverables, the Scottish Government established a Scottish Practitioner Forum. The role of this Forum has been to advise and guide the work on the Review and to ensure that this was based on the experience of current practitioners in Scotland. The Forum has met regularly to support the Review.

The OECD is not taking formal written submissions for the Review of Curriculum for Excellence. The Review is independent and the OECD are international experts in this type of work. This approach has been the OECD’s position from the outset.

The OECD has been clear that it is not feasible for the Review team to consider more information than what they asked for, nor is it the purpose of the Review to generate new written submissions or replace what would otherwise be a national consultation.

The Scottish Government published supplementary guidance on 16 February regarding the first phase of children and young people returning to schools. This is in addition to the existing guidance on reducing risks in schools, which remains in place.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-schools-reopening/

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-reducing-the-risks-in-schools/

There is also a range of advice and information for parents on the Parent Club website.

https://www.parentclub.scot/topics/coronavirus

I refer the member to the answer to question S5W-35500 on 24 February 2021. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx

• The evidence based JCVI guidance advises that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age, and that the risk increases exponentially with age. Additionally the committee considers frontline health and social care workers who provide direct care to vulnerable people a high priority for vaccination.
• Currently there is no sectoral prioritisation of any workers other than frontline health and social care workers. This is because we don’t know if the vaccine prevents spread, but it does reduce the harm to those most at risk should they catch the virus. Individual members of your waste management workforce will be called forward for vaccination according to their position on the priority list, if they are eligible within the JCVI Cohorts (e.g. All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality)
• Decisions to prioritise one population group over another are not taken lightly, nor are they straightforward. That is why our prioritisation decisions have been, and will continue to be, guided by the independent expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

The Public Health Scotland Report of record linkage study of COVID-19 among Teachers, Healthcare workers and other working-age adults (publichealthscotland.scot) does record the increased risk of teaching staff for catching COVID-19, but also confirms that, “Across the whole period teachers were at lower risk of both hospitalisation with COVID-19, and of severe COVID-19 (defined where an individual was admitted to intensive care or died within 28 days of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2), than the general population. In the period since schools re-opened in August 2020 through to November 2020, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of hospitalisation between teachers and the general population and the risk of severe COVID-19 was lower amongst teachers.”

Prioritisation by sector is not being considered for the following reasons:

• Criticality of service is not an indication for priority vaccination because clinical risk is the overriding concern. This is influenced most greatly by age, not occupation.
• Currently there is no sectoral prioritisation of any workers other than frontline health and social care workers. This is because we don’t know if the vaccine prevents spread, but it does reduce the harm to those most at risk should they catch the virus.
• Individual members of the teaching profession will be called forward for vaccination according to their position on the priority list, if they are eligible within the JCVI Cohorts regarding their age and/or underlying medical conditions (e.g. All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality).

However, the JCVI list now includes staff directly involved in the direct care of children and young people with the most complex additional healthcare needs who are clinically vulnerable to severe effects of COVID. They may be at higher risk of exposure due to their close contact with those providing health and social care support, particularly those with severe neuro-disabilities. They will be eligible under category 2 of the JCVI list. This includes staff working in special schools and units, and in some cases in mainstream schools. Staff supporting these children will undertake roles which will align to the multi-agency educational and care plans for these children who are the most clinically vulnerable.

COSLA Leaders agreed the funding distribution on 29 January 2021 and the following table confirms how much each local authority has been allocated. This additional funding may be used flexibly by councils in supporting the delivery of remote learning to recruit additional staff, purchase additional digital devices and connectivity solutions for children and young people who still need them, and to provide additional family support.

On 27 January 2021, the Scottish Funding Council published guidance in relation to additional funding of £730,250 in Financial Year (FY) 2020-21 for college and university students’ associations and unions. This confirmed institutional and College Region allocations.

NUS Scotland will receive grant funding of £19,750 to (a) provide advice to student associations on the coordination of student association activities; and (b) draft, in consultation with Scottish Funding Council (SFC), an outcomes based report setting out how associations have used the additional resources to support students.

I have asked SQA to respond:

SQA’s Board of Management has a wide range of skills and experiences that allow it to function effectively with the CEO and the Executive Management Team.

a) Of our 9 Board of Management members, 2 are GTCS registered teacher/lecturers.

b) Of our 9 Board of Management members, 4 have front line teaching/lecturing experience.