Education, Children and Young People Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Official Report 751KB pdf

---

Budget 2023-24

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2023 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Agenda item 1 is evidence on the budget for 2023-24. I welcome our first panel of witnesses: the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Anne Somerville; and Graeme Logan, director of learning at the Scottish Government. I thank you for joining us today.

We will begin with a short opening statement from you, cabinet secretary. You have up to three minutes.

Thank you, convener.

As I have highlighted previously, the current budget is taking place in a turbulent economic context. The Scottish Government is not immune from that turbulence, and we continue to take decisions that will achieve the greatest impact on the outcomes that we are seeking to achieve. At a macro scale, that means adopting a firm focus on tackling child poverty, creating a wellbeing economy with a just transition to net zero and ensuring the sustainability of first-class public services.

With those outcomes in mind, the committee will be aware of my recent statement regarding our commitment to protect teacher and support staff numbers, and the current number of learning hours for children. As I said in the chamber, I remain grateful

“to our colleagues in local government for their dedication to the delivery of a first-class education for our children and young people. For example, we remain close to record levels of teacher numbers, and our pupil teacher ratio remains historically low, at 13.2. Last year, we witnessed the biggest single-year decrease in the attainment gap in primary numeracy and literacy levels since records began”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; c 25.]

Equally, I understand the difficult budgetary choices that local government faces. However, it is my responsibility, as education secretary, to ensure that we have in place the fundamentals to build on the current success. That is why we have funded new financial commitments around the funding that we have provided for teacher numbers and pupil support staff. In particular, that is to at least maintain teacher numbers at current levels in the year ahead, while working towards the delivery of our commitment to increase teacher numbers by 3,500 by the end of this session of Parliament; to maintain the number of school support staff at their current levels; and to continue to ensure that places are available for probationary teachers on the teacher induction scheme who need them.

In addition, the committee will have seen the reports that some councils were considering a reduction to the length of the school week. There is already statutory provision that pupils must receive 190 school days per year, but I am concerned that a reduction in learning hours would materially reduce pupil attainment and wellbeing. For that reason, I will commence the provision in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 that will enable ministers to set the minimum number of learning hours in a school year. Following thorough consultation, I will bring forward regulations that will specify the minimum number of learning hours per annum and effectively provide a statutory basis for the pupil week. There is currently some limited variation in delivery across Scotland. That has arisen for a range of reasons, and it will need to be fully explored through the consultation, and considered before regulations are laid. Those regulations will be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure.

Finally, I take the opportunity to update the committee briefly on the teacher pay negotiations. Notwithstanding financial challenges, the Scottish Government has demonstrated our commitment to teachers to provide a fair pay offer in 2022-23 and is now providing further additional funding to enable the two-year pay deal offer to teachers. That offer will provide the most experienced teachers at the top of the main grade pay scale—70 per cent of all teachers—with a pay increase of more than £5,000 in comparison with January 2022.

In comparison to the previous offer, the new offer significantly increases the financial envelope, with an overall cumulative increase of 11.83 per cent for the majority of staff over two years. Although some other unions are currently consulting their members, the committee will have seen that the Educational Institute of Scotland has already rejected that enhancement. Although I am obviously disappointed, it goes without saying that the current disruption is extremely difficult for young people, parents and carers, and I will continue to do everything that I can to secure a deal that is fair and affordable for all.

Thank you for that statement. We move to opening questions, from Graeme Dey.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I go back to what has triggered all this—namely, how an additional sum of £145.5 million that was given for the purpose of increasing teacher and learning support assistant numbers was used, or not, by local authorities. A lot of muddying of the water has been attempted around that, and two points are being lost. One is that we should acknowledge that eight councils, and the grant-aided sector, used the money for the purpose for which it was given and have increased their numbers, but it is clear that the majority of councils have not done so.

I want to explore with you what the Government has ascertained with regard to how the moneys were used at local authority level. I have knowledge of one council—Angus Council—where the sums that were given were deployed to add 28 full-time equivalent teachers and 10 learning support assistants. However, Angus Council’s numbers have gone down by 27 overall, which gives the impression that it has clearly not replaced temporary and permanent posts that already existed. There has also been an admission that £1 million of that money was allocated—the council tells me that a strategic proposal was made—to meet the costs of a saving that the council was making, so the money was obviously not used for the purpose for which it was given. I apologise for the long-winded intro, but has the Government found that to be typical—is that what most councils utilised the moneys for?

First, I would point out that, in 2022-23, the money was given with the understanding that it would be used for teacher numbers and pupil support staff, and that was our expectation as we went through the year. We have received and continue to receive reassurances from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that it was spent on education and issues surrounding education—particularly teacher numbers. However, if Mr Dey would like to pass on a copy of that letter from Angus Council to let me see the details, I would be happy to respond, because clearly the situation will vary from council to council. However, the overall reassurance from COSLA that the money was spent on education is something that we had to take on good faith.

Clearly, when the teacher census numbers came out, there was concern that that might not have been the case in every situation. That is why, looking forward, we are very keen to ensure that we have further monitoring in place to ensure that we get from that money what we expect, which is to at least maintain teacher and pupil support staff numbers over the year ahead. I would be happy to receive that letter and to look into it in further detail, if Mr Dey wishes to pass that on.

Yes, I appreciate that, cabinet secretary, but the situation appears to be pretty clear when you look through the list of numbers for each council. The vast majority of councils saw their teacher numbers go down, so, in the majority of cases, the money clearly was not used for the purpose for which it was given.

The overall number of teachers went down by 92 and it varies by local authority. In fairness to local authority colleagues, I would also say that some of the numbers go down by very small amounts and some of that might be due to genuine recruitment and retention issues, particularly in rural remote areas or in specific subjects. Therefore, there is a real need for us to look very carefully at this and to work with local authorities and councils as we go through the process to ensure that we are cognisant of some of the challenges that they might face in particular areas or particular subjects that might lead to numbers going down by quite a small number. That might not be due to strategic decisions made by the council but due to genuine recruitment challenges. I would separate out those two issues.

Some of the reductions were small and some of them might have been due to those practical issues, but that is clearly still a concern. We also had to bear in mind that some of the proposals—I accept that they were proposals from officers, not decisions that were made by councils—were really quite grave in terms of what they would have meant for teacher and pupil support staff numbers. It was on that basis—not just looking at the teacher census for last year, which showed that small decrease—that I was keen to take action. Therefore, it was a case of looking at the situation historically—looking at the previous year—but also at some of the proposals from officers for the year ahead.

I am conscious of the time, so we will now move to questions from Stephen Kerr.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will stick with the issue of the figure of £145.5 million. In relation to the agreement that you and John Swinney made in the summer of 2021—I use the word “agreement” and I will come back to that word—you have used words such as “understanding” and “expectation” with regard to the idea that that money would be made core to local authorities for the purposes that you have described. Was that simply a verbal agreement? Was there an exchange of memos or letters? Was anything actually set down that could be referred to for future accountability? How was that done? I will put the matter in context. In my previous life, before I became a politician, lots of multimillion-pound deals were done but they were never done on the basis of a verbal agreement. They were always done on the basis of some pretty solid paperwork.

09:00  

How I thought that that money should be spent was not in any way private. I remember discussing it a great deal in Parliament. How it was to be spent was very public. Similarly, the discussions with COSLA went on at that level as well. I said it in Parliament and directly to COSLA. Of course, the money then went from the Scottish Government to the settlement distribution group, which had to decide how it will be divided between the 32 local authorities. There is no dubiety about how the—

Is there nothing substantive on the agreement that you reached? Was it simply verbally agreed? You refer to the Official Report of the proceedings of Parliament. I get that and I agree with you that your expectations were well described but, when you make an agreement with COSLA, surely it has to be set out in specific detail what the expectation is and what the accountability is for it.

Yes, and I would be happy to provide written detail on that. As I said, there was no dubiety in public or private with Government, Parliament or COSLA about how the money would be spent.

If you are willing to share any documentation on that, that would be useful.

The £100 million that was announced yesterday in the budget is going to local authorities and is to be used exclusively or is expected to be used—we have to use the right language—to increase the salaries of non-teaching education staff. That is correct, is it not?

Yes.

That money is part of the Barnett consequentials—the adjustments—that come at the financial year end. Is that where it comes from?

The £100 million is part of the settlement for next year, 2023-24, but the Deputy First Minister made it clear that there were late changes to the 2022-23 budget that allowed him to use some of that to assist with the 2023-24 budget.

So, I am correct in saying that.

Yes, I think that we are agreeing with each other.

It is the normal, run-of-the-mill stuff that there is an adjustment at the end of the year. That £100 million has gone to the non-teaching education staff.

I come back to the question of where the money comes from. I am genuinely seeking to understand that. One of the great defences that is deployed frequently against those of us in opposition who ask questions of Government about spending is that, if we want to spend more money in a particular area, we have to say where it will be taken from. Last week, you announced that £156 million, split between this year and next, will be used to fund the pay offer for teachers. Where did the money come from?

As the Deputy First Minister tried to explain to you yesterday in the chamber, Mr Kerr, £33 million of that comes from the 2022-23 budget. That has been done with exceptional difficulty and not without consequences, to ensure that we can improve the offer for 2022-23.

Is that from generic savings?

It comes from the decisions that we have taken on savings and analysing the money that we have for 2022-23 to ensure that we can—

So, that is on the back of the announcements that John Swinney made last year about how he was clawing back money and seeking savings from all of his Cabinet colleagues.

There was not just one announcement but a series of announcements of the changes that we had to make. Those are the types of challenges that the Deputy First Minister has understandably made to Cabinet colleagues to see what could be done to initiate savings.

And the money for next year?

For next year, the £123 million comes from the education and skills budget.

So, that money was already there.

The money is in the budget for next year.

It has been reallocated.

It now has to be found to be spent on teachers’ pay.

There are cuts in the education and skills budget for 2023-24. That money is being moved from somewhere in your budget to local government to pay for the new offer.

I will have to find that money in year to assist with the pay offer. I go back to the point that I have made all along in the teachers’ pay dispute that, if we increase the capacity for local government to improve its offer as the employer, the money needs to be found and that is not without consequence. That money will be found from the education and skills budget.

Mr Kerr, are you looking for what the consequences are?

Yes, I am. Where is that money going to be cut from?

Well, I will have to analyse that and make those decisions in year to ensure that the education and skills budget balances. Clearly, though, Mr Kerr, you have been demanding that I take action to improve the pay offer. I have made it clear to you every single time that the only way in which that can be done is by the money being increased—

I am not sure that I am powerful enough to be responsible for what you decide in the Government.

But then you have to understand the consequences of that, Mr Kerr.

Can I just make one last point—

A small point, Mr Kerr, before we move on.

It will be a small point, but this is deeply concerning. Cabinet secretary, what you are telling us in the final moments of this budget process is that you are going to cut other education and skills programmes to the tune of £110 million, but we do not know the details of that and you do not know what they are either.

With the greatest respect, Mr Kerr, I say to you that for the entirety of the teachers’ pay dispute I have said that, if the money is to be increased, that money will have to come from somewhere else. I genuinely do not know how that is a surprise to you—the balance has to be found within the budget.

I am hearing all of that; it is your traditional defence, and I get it—

No, it is just numeracy.

Please—

But you do not have the details of where the money is going to be cut from at the moment.

I think—

We will have to work through that in-year.

I think that the cabinet secretary has answered the question, and I think that the answer is no, there is no detail.

Right. We need to know what that means as you go along, cabinet secretary, because at the minute you do not know the detail.

Well, indeed, and every single time, Mr Kerr, you demand that I put a new offer on the table—

Cabinet secretary—

—and that has consequences—

Cabinet secretary, that defence has been well deployed.

Cabinet secretary, Mr Kerr, please. We will now move to questions from Michael Marra.

On 18 December 2022, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, issued his budget circular to COSLA; on 18 January 2023, cabinet secretary, you were in front of us, giving details of the budget; and, on 1 February, you wrote a letter to COSLA, saying that you would be ring fencing one third of its net revenue budget and demanding that it get back to you by 5 pm to say how it was going to deal with that and whether or not it would be accepting that. What changed your mind between your appearance here and your letter of 1 February?

As soon as the teacher census numbers came out, I was concerned about them and quickly wrote to COSLA to raise those concerns and to suggest that we meet urgently to discuss the numbers. We then moved forward with discussions with COSLA on those issues.

Private discussions took place with COSLA, but they were not on finding a way of coming forward in the way that we have with the proposals that we have now; they were on finding good will and an understanding that teacher numbers would not be cut. However, when it became clear to me that, unfortunately, further action would have to be taken, we changed from the policy that we had in 2022-23, which was based on an understanding of how that money would be spent, to what will happen in 2023-24, which is to ensure that the money is spent in that way and to initiate clawback if ministers so decide. There was an on-going private discussion with COSLA, as I hope people will appreciate we should have, all the way from the publication of the teacher census in December 2022 to the letter that was then sent through officially on how that would be done.

You were questioned on the issue of teacher numbers in the chamber and by the committee, and you did not at any point, I think, say that there was any mechanism or push to try to resolve things. However, as I have said, between 18 January and 1 February, you resolved to ring fence in its entirety one third of the net revenue budget of councils across Scotland. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—SOLACE—said at that point that it was impossible, with no notice, to rewrite budgets by 5 pm and in one working day. Is that the way in which the Scottish Government should be running not just education but, frankly, its finances?

As I have said, the letter was the final piece that came after a number of meetings between the Scottish Government at ministerial level with COSLA spokespeople and at official level before that final opportunity was given to see whether more could be done in a different way.

We were very clear that we wanted to see progress, but we were also very clear with COSLA that that could be done in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion that that approach was required. The reason why that was required was obviously the teacher census, which sparked concerns about what happened in the previous year.

For clarity, I highlight that the proposals are from officers, but we saw a number of councils coming out with proposals for the 2023-24 budget that were exceptionally concerning in terms of what they would mean for teacher numbers.

If we put those two things together, that is why we were on a trajectory—

You have already said that, cabinet secretary; you are repeating your first answer. I want to try to understand how you moved within that period. You cannot think that the situation is optimal and desirable. There is chaos in councils following the decision to take a third of the entirety of their budgeting options. We could have a discussion about whether we think that that is a good thing for teacher numbers, but councils are left having to make massive cuts in other areas.

I will give one example. Dundee City Council is about to cut its funding for Big Noise Douglas in Dundee, which is an education programme that works with kids in the most impoverished area. The council has been left in that position in which it is making that cut. Is that a reasonable position for you to have put it in with just days to go before it sets its budget?

I will say a couple of things about that.

Overall, local authorities spend £6.4 billion on education. I note that figure to give some balance to some of the numbers that you have mentioned.

I have a funny feeling that, if we, as a Government, did not come in and do something that would protect teacher numbers, Opposition parties would be jumping up and down—indeed, they were at First Minister’s question time—

That is precisely my point—

Mr Marra, you should let me answer the question.

Give the cabinet secretary—

What was the alternative to protect teacher numbers? We tried very hard with local authorities to find out what that would be, but that was a challenging conversation and we were unable to come to any conclusion, so I had to take the action that I took. There is no alternative that I have in front of me or that has been presented to me that would have protected teacher numbers.

I will make a final point. We concluded the budget process yesterday. At no point in that process did any Opposition party come forward with costed plans on how to increase the amount that is given to local government, if they wanted that. There are more demands for spending money but few to no suggestions about where that money would come from. I am afraid that the reality of the situation is that there is a lack of alternatives.

I am afraid that that was not an answer to either of the questions that I have asked. The situation can be described only as chaos, which is how SOLACE has described it. There has been a complete failure of planning on the part of the Government to deal with a fundamental issue in relation to ensuring that teacher numbers are maintained over the long term. It strikes me that the one thing that seems to have changed is that the First Minister was challenged on that very issue on television on 30 January—

Is there a question?

Is that why you changed your position between 30 January and 1 February?

Letters went from me to COSLA straight after the teacher census, so no, Mr Marra. I think that you are trying to suggest something. The discussions about that started right after the teacher census. I point out that teacher numbers are still at a near record high in Scotland.

On the subject of the timeline, I was in discussion with West Lothian Council councillors earlier this week. They spoke about how they had been consulting on their budget since last September. On the last-minute change that came, I do not want to pre-empt anything—they have their budget meeting today—but there could be a council tax increase as a result, given the short notice. They were also concerned that there had not yet been a decision on the schools for the future funding, which was meant to be announced in December. Will you update us on that?

09:15  

Certainly. I totally appreciate that the work for the budget proposals that come from local authorities goes on for a number of months before anything goes to the councils themselves. I go back to the point that the teacher census comes out at the start of December. That was when we had the information that showed the reduction in teacher numbers. I completely appreciate that councils had been working on it, but the material and information came out in December, which is when we began immediately to take action.

I am conscious of the fact that we have said previously that we would make the announcement on the next stage of the learning estate investment programme. I have been looking at that very carefully, and I hope to make the announcement soon. It would be fair to say that a number of local authorities have come forward with proposals, all of which are of good quality and that fulfil the criteria, so I am giving the matter due and serious consideration. I appreciate that my taking some more time to look at that is difficult for councils, but I hope that they appreciate that it is because I recognise the real significance to them of the decisions that we would take and because of the number of proposals that came in.

Thank you. We move to questions from Ross Greer.

I do not have questions in this session, convener.

Apologies. We move to questions from Bob Doris.

I am looking at teacher numbers. I can see in Glasgow City Council that—thankfully—from 2021 to 2022 more than 100 new teachers were appointed, so there is positive news in Glasgow. However, overall, there was a 0.2 per cent dip in teacher numbers across all schools in Scotland.

I am not quite sure what the baseline is for judging progress, though, so I refer you, cabinet secretary, to the non-recurring funds that were given to local authorities in July 2020, August 2020 and March 2021. They came to £140 million and were for more teachers and teaching assistants, at the height of Covid, to do all that we could to support schools and education. When we look at the recurring funds, we see that the total is roughly the same.

Do we have data on how many teachers and teaching assistants were employed following the non-recurring funding in those three periods? That would allow us to compare where we were before the recurring funds were given and how the non-recurring funds were spent for that particular funding year.

Yes, we do have that. I would be happy to provide some information about how the money has been spent. There was a clear increase in the number of teachers. If we look at 2021, we had 54,285—I mentioned the reduction of 92 teachers in that regard—but, in the previous year, we had 53,400 teachers. Overall, we have seen an increase, from pre-pandemic levels to where we are now, of an additional 2,000 teachers.

On how the money was given to councils—this was Covid money, so it was before the baseline—there were two parts to that. We saw an increase in the number of teachers in employment, particularly from that first batch of Covid money. It is quite challenging to know whether the second batch was spent to improve the number of teachers and pupil support assistants, as we might have thought that it would be; it was Covid money, and there are a number of ways in which that could have been spent. Again, I would say to councils that there was more flexibility for them at that point. I would be happy to provide the information about the breakdown over the years and a breakdown of our expectations about where that money would be spent.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. There is a lot in that. Without seeing it written down, we, as a committee, cannot really analyse it. Will the Government be absolutely clear where the baseline is on which it will be judged in terms of maintaining and increasing teaching numbers and teaching support assistants? Will that be crystal clear when we get that information?

That will all be from the teacher census, in essence. The census gives the national statistics on teacher numbers. The numbers on pupil support assistants are not published in December; as I referred to previously, they are published in March. When you look at where the baseline is for each of the years and where the numbers that I quoted came from, you will see that those are from the teacher census.

We look forward to getting those figures, which the committee will want to scrutinise.

In its early days, the committee had a discussion about schools and local authorities employing teachers and assistants on temporary contracts as quickly as they could to support education during Covid. It was recognised that they were not necessarily the right education facility, with the right skill set or where you would want them to be going forward. What monitoring does the Government do in relation to temporary contracts that were awarded at the height of Covid, and where we will be in that regard going forward?

I had a number of discussions in the chamber on the issue of temporary and permanent staff, particularly with, I think, Mr Rennie. One point that local authorities continually raised with me was the difficulty in moving staff from temporary to permanent positions, because the money was not permanent—it was not baselined. That is why we moved from using Covid money to providing permanent funding.

We looked at the teacher census to see what had happened in that regard. It was clear that there had not been the movement that we had wanted to see. I would have hoped and expected to see an increase in the number of permanent contracts. Very understandably, because the money was temporary and because of the urgent need to get people in, the number of temporary contracts was high during Covid. I had hoped and expected that that would change, but that has not happened. However, I am keen to work with local government to see what can be done on that issue.

Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. I would like to ask about fairness and consistency when it comes to local authorities managing localised needs and changing needs, such as falling rolls. I will give the example of my local area: North Ayrshire is experiencing a decline in population and, with that, a decline in the pupil roll. That is reflected in a reduction in the grant-aided expenditure that the council receives. Is it the case that councils with an increasing pupil roll will receive additional funding through grant-aided expenditure, but that, rather than having to increase the number of teachers, they need maintain them only at 2022 levels?

In the letter that I have just issued on teacher numbers, I recognise that pupil numbers have decreased, and are expected to decrease in some local authority areas while some others will experience an increase. It is clear that, in certain local authorities, it would be possible keep the pupil teacher ratio the same with a reduction in teachers. That is something that local authorities could look at.

However, the challenge that we face is that we also want to improve attainment, and it is clear—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s research supports this—that teacher numbers and teacher quality have an impact on attainment. Therefore, a decreasing pupil roll is not necessarily a reason to reduce teacher numbers, particularly if an authority is considering how it can support pupils from the poorest communities or pupils who, for whatever reason, are struggling in school. Teachers can be used in different ways.

The pupil teacher ratio is important, but so, too, is how the overall teaching workforce is used. When it comes to expenditure, whether pupil numbers go up or go down has an impact on the funding that goes to local authorities.

Forgive me for staying with the example of North Ayrshire, but its figures are the ones that I know, although I think that my line of inquiry about the situation there will be relevant to other areas of Scotland. North Ayrshire was one of the areas that lost Scottish attainment challenge funding. We have had that debate, and I absolutely recognise that there is poverty everywhere and that that funding needs to be provided across Scotland. However, the local authority employed an additional 17 teachers with that funding. Now that its funding has been reduced, it needs to find that money from elsewhere.

I recognise what the cabinet secretary has said about teacher numbers, which are important. However, when we talk about the poverty-related attainment gap, for children and families in my constituency, good services such as libraries and leisure centres are also crucial for their opportunities. What assessment has the Scottish Government made in relation to those things?

When it comes to the challenge authorities, parts of my letter to local authorities recognise that we might need to take into account exceptional circumstances. I mentioned recruitment and retention earlier; we would take cognisance, too, of the changes to challenge authorities.

I fully appreciate the difficult decisions that local authorities have to make. I said in my opening statement that local authorities have very difficult decisions to make, just as the Scottish Government did as we put our budget together. We have—this is a joint understanding—a desire to improve attainment. I have yet to see any suggestion that reductions in teacher numbers or pupil support assistants would help to close the poverty-related attainment gap.

If we want to get those education fundamentals in place, we have to take the decisions. If we have a joint understanding about why money has been put into a budget, it is not surprising that local government would wish to provide further challenge to local authorities to ensure that that money was spent in that way.

Local authorities have to make very difficult decisions on other areas of their expenditure. However, to go back to the point that we made earlier when we were discussing the budget that was set yesterday, the Deputy First Minister introduced additional expenditure for local government of more than £700 million, which is a substantial real-terms increase. The decisions that we have taken allowed that to happen.

As I mentioned earlier, no costed proposals came forward from other parties to suggest how that funding could be increased.

I am conscious of the time. I know that you have one more question, Ms Maguire. I ask that the cabinet secretary keep her answers as concise as possible, please.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s answer. You mentioned exceptional circumstances. We all acknowledge that there is no evidence that reducing teacher numbers would assist in reducing the poverty-related attainment gap.

We might have a case in North Ayrshire of a surplus of teachers. Perhaps the Scottish Government could look to the specific circumstances of the area—not to consider additional funding, but to ensure that we are taking a fair and consistent approach that benefits the children and schools there.

There is a myriad of ways of using a teaching workforce—it could be for supporting pupils with additional support needs or for smaller group work that assists with numeracy and literacy. I do not see those teachers as surplus but as a teaching workforce that can be used by a local authority to assist children in a variety of ways as it sees fit, particularly to try to improve attainment.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will continue on the theme of workforce planning. I am interested in getting a bit of insight on the communications that you might or might not have had with the teacher workforce planning advisory group and consultations that might have occurred regarding that 3,500 figure. It would be good to know about that.

09:30  

A great deal of work is being done to model what happens with the teacher workforce. The Scottish Government does not undertake that work alone; a lot of it is done with stakeholders. The model that is used looks at, for example, the number that has to go into initial teacher education to maintain pupil-teacher ratios, the number of teachers who are in the system, retirements, the number of people who are returning from maternity leave and so on.

There is then a group that looks at that modelling but, as I said, it is not just the Government. It involves the universities, the funding councils, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and, importantly, the teachers union and the local authorities as the employers—I should not forget to mention them. A number of stakeholders are looking at the best modelling and forecasting that can be done on the numbers of teachers who will leave the workforce and who might have to come into it. Such groups will also analyse what has to be done to assist the Government with its proposals, which are supported by the Bute house agreement, for additional teachers.

Okay, so that is how the initial teacher education programme intake is determined—I get that. Is there capacity in ITE courses to meet the Government target?

The Government target remains at 3,500 by the end of the year. We have to work with local government colleagues once budgets are set to analyse further projections in-year, and we also need to look at what the ITE number will be. That is not a one-stage process but an iterative process that will go on throughout the year. The Government’s commitment to those numbers remains.

We all support recruiting those additional teachers, but we have heard a lot about violence in the environment in which teachers are operating. In order to achieve the numbers and attract people into the profession, will serious changes have to be made to teacher contracts?

Changes to teacher contracts are an issue for the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers to look at. The Government is part of that committee, but it is only one part, quite rightly. The SNCT meets regularly. Unsurprisingly, the SNCT agenda is currently taken up by the teachers’ pay dispute although we still are still having on-going bilateral discussions with teaching unions as well as through the SNCT about a number of issues such as workforce, workload, the impacts on staff and their mental health and wellbeing and so on.

Cabinet secretary, you already touched on this point in your response to Ruth Maguire. I am going to roll what I want to ask into one question because I am mindful of the time. We are all clear that narrowing the poverty-related attainment gap is a key education priority. Will you outline the role that teachers play in narrowing that gap? Are we seeing results from investing in teacher numbers? Finally, what impact will cutting teacher numbers have?

Teachers are only one part—but an exceptionally important part—of reducing the poverty-related attainment gap. As I said earlier, we have seen an increase of 2,000 teachers on pre-pandemic levels and, as in other countries, the overall attainment levels have been impacted by Covid. However, in large part because of the exceptionally hard work of teachers and support staff, we have seen improvements in the attainment gap, such as the biggest single-year decrease in the attainment gap in primary numeracy and literacy since levels began. We absolutely still have more work to do on that but we have seen recovery in place and, as I said, that would in large part be down to the teachers.

There are a number of ways in which that work can be done; I pointed to some of those earlier. It is not just done by one teacher in front of a class, but involves specialist work by teachers for small groups of pupils and support for those with additional support needs. There are a number of ways that that can be done.

The quality of teaching and learning is also important. It is not possible to say that there is one thing that will improve attainment. There are different aspects to that, but I hope we can agree that teachers are an integral part of that. That is why the Government has placed such importance on increasing teacher numbers and why I have taken decisions to ensure that we do not see decreases in teacher numbers, which should be maintained throughout the year.

What direct impact would a cut in teacher numbers have on closing the attainment gap?

For brevity, I will restate something that I said earlier. I have seen no research to suggest that cutting teacher numbers, or the number of learning hours that children spend in school, would improve attainment. There is an obligation on Government to do all that we can to try to ensure that numbers are maintained if not improved.

The committee’s report on the attainment challenge made it clear that it is a very complex issue that is not binary, and there is not just one contributing factor.

Talk me through this, cabinet secretary. If a council ignores your warning on teacher numbers, what happens next? What is the process?

As we go through the year, we work with local authorities to put monitoring arrangements in place. One challenge for us was that the figures that showed the problem came out in December but, because our agreement with local authorities did not include additional monitoring, we did not have in-year monitoring last year. We want to improve on that. We are still looking at how that will be done, but it will probably be done quarterly and will flag up in-year issues with local authorities. Our discussions with COSLA are on-going. We do not want an overly onerous or a continuous monitoring process. We also recognise that numbers will go up and down because of recruitment and retention at different times of the year.

If there is an in-year issue, that will begin with concerns being raised at council officer or official level. They will look at the reasons for that and at the challenges in the area. If the issue has to be escalated to me and we have to have discussions with that particular council, that will happen. If we reach a point where the situation still has not improved by the end of the year, the last tranche of money can be withheld from a council at that point. That is absolutely a worst-case scenario and is one that we do not want to get to. We want to work with local authorities in-year to understand their specific circumstances. There is no blanket approach.

Okay. Let us say that you have clear evidence that a council has ignored your warnings and has cut teacher numbers. If you withdraw the funding, what does the council do next? For example, what happens if the council decides that, as a result of that cut in funding, it has to make further cuts in teacher numbers? Will you impose a further penalty on that council? How does that work?

We have clearly laid out that we would withhold the last tranche of funding if councils do not follow through. That is important. Clearly, that will have implications for councils, which is the whole point of having a system that attempts to prevent councils from reducing teacher numbers.

That is not a blanket approach. There may be reasons why teacher numbers go down, in which case there would not be any financial penalties for local authorities. We have been very clear, right from the start, that there will be financial penalties if councils are seen to take strategic decisions to reduce teacher numbers. That will have implications for councils.

If you penalise councils that believe that they have no other choice than to cut teacher numbers, is it possible that there could be even fewer teachers at the end of that process? Is that a possible scenario?

Because we will work closely and carefully with local authorities in-year, there will be a clear understanding from them about what will happen and the implications of that. It is for local authorities to then weigh up whether it would be sensible to carry on strategically cutting teacher numbers because they will know the implications. I do not think that we will get to that situation because, through the collaboration that we will have in-year, they will be very clear about the implications of that and how it might not make financial sense for a council to do it.

I understand that you do not want to get to that and you want to have a collaborative approach. That is what you have been trying to do for years but, apparently, it has not succeeded. I am curious as to how you think that withdrawing more funding from a council will help it to balance its budget and get the appropriate number of staff in the right schools. Will it not end up undermining the objective that you set yourself at the beginning? Will we not end up with fewer teachers and classroom assistants?

The councils do not want to take that approach. As you know, they face really difficult financial challenges—you acknowledged that yourself. I do not understand how the penalty helps anybody. The councils are not the enemy. They are trying to do their best and your penalty might make it even worse.

I will challenge something that you said in your question, if I may. We have not been taking the 2022-23 approach for years. We tried that one year. Actually, until 2018-19, we had exactly the system that we are now putting back in place. During that time, no council got to the stage of having a financial penalty. That proves that that approach worked and I anticipate that to happen again.

What we did for years is what we are just about to reintroduce. I hasten to add that I do not want it to be in place for years—I want to get to a different situation for the next financial year—but, when you look at what happened historically, not a single council in any of those years got to the point of having a financial penalty.

There is no point in having the threat of a penalty if you are not prepared to contemplate the consequences of that penalty. You have to accept that we could end up with a scenario in which councils have even less funding and, therefore, cannot employ as many teachers as they would like, so there will be a further cut in teacher numbers. You have to accept that that is a possibility with the penalty.

Well, you are looking at a hypothetical situation in the future.

Yes, I am, because you set it out.

I am looking at the evidence of what has happened in the past, which shows that that has not happened in any council in any year in the past. That shows that the approach works and has been demonstrated to work in the past.

In rural areas, in particular, some specialities are finding it difficult to recruit. Will those councils be penalised if they are unable recruit the appropriate number of teachers?

No.

My question is regarding the exceptional circumstances that you laid out to Ruth Maguire for the challenge authorities where you have cut the funding for the poorest communities. Dundee City Council sets its budget tomorrow. Has there been an application for exceptional circumstances from that council or any of the other challenge authorities?

Or perhaps any local authority.

For a start, we have not cut the funding for the poorest communities.

You have.

What we have done, as agreed with COSLA, is look at where the poorest communities and the poorest children are, and we have put the funding to those areas—and, yes, that is across the 32 local authorities.

The exceptional circumstances application would take place once we were in-year and looking at changes to teacher numbers, either up or down. Councils would come forward and suggest that there were exceptional circumstances for a change. No council will be making an application now, because they are setting their budgets and it would be inappropriate for a council to do that just now. That is what the in-year discussions are for, as I just went through with Mr Rennie. They are about dealing with any variations to teacher numbers. That is the point for us to talk about exceptional circumstances.

It is useful to have clarity on that mechanism and that it is an in-year process prior to the budget being set. For clarity, Dundee’s budget for this has been cut by £4.9 million, for the poorest community in the country.

Thank you for your time, cabinet secretary.

I will now suspend for around five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses.

09:44 Meeting suspended.  

 

09:50 On resuming—