I welcome members back to the meeting. Agenda item 2 is a round-up session with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to mark the end of the first year of this parliamentary session. The item is an opportunity for the committee to consider the progress that the Scottish Government has made over the past 12 months on key education issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to come to talk to the committee in this catch-up session at the end of our school and academic year.
Thank you for that opening statement, cabinet secretary. We have a lot to get through and will try to keep things as tight as possible.
It is quite clear what it was intended to achieve. On 28 February, Bill Maxwell told the committee:
I note that when you last appeared before the committee you were at pains to emphasise that the national audit was to be a deep audit. As we have heard this morning, however, Education Scotland rather shies away from that term, seeing it as more of a progress audit. Do you regret referring to it as a deep audit? Did that lead to some misunderstanding about what was involved in the process?
Not on my part. It is absolutely clear that Education Scotland has the ability to understand what is taking place in our schools. Let us look at the figures: this year alone, Education Scotland has made 149 visits to schools and has had 223 further engagements and, as Bill Maxwell has indicated, special discussions and inquiries were also going on. I think that that approach was deep and significant and got to the truth of the situation. In those circumstances, what was done was what we said would be done.
I do not dispute for a second that there is a shared common objective, but you will recall the context earlier this year in which the undertakings were made with regard to the audit and additional support. Although I do not doubt that you—and indeed Education Scotland—had an understanding of what you expected from the audit, I think that, as it emphasised again this morning, the EIS received a reassurance under the bilateral agreement that it reached with you that the audit would get down to departmental heads and teachers at the coalface. Clearly, that did not happen across the board as had been envisaged and, as a result, its portrayal as a deep audit does not necessarily accurately reflect what took place.
I do not think that I used the term “deep audit”; Dr Maxwell used it at the committee meeting on 6 March and then said—quite rightly:
The SSTA told us this morning that self-referral was seen as an admission of failure and that people were reluctant to go down that route; indeed, those who put themselves forward felt somewhat intimidated by the process. When the EIS circulated information about the audit to its members and invited them to voice any concerns, it was often met with the question, “What audit?” It is clear that the process did not work in the way that you, Education Scotland or indeed the unions had envisaged.
I do not accept either of those points, and I will tell you why. There was a specific agreement with EIS—which I have just read out to you—that allowed it to raise those issues. That was used on seven occasions, and I would have been happy if it had been used on more occasions. There was a channel open for that to happen.
You mentioned that you had heard Mr Flanagan raise the issue of local authorities failing to engage with the audit process. He did not feel able to name them, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to which local authorities—in Mr Flanagan’s exact words—“turned away from the audit process”.
I do not know of any authorities that did that. If Larry Flanagan wants to name the authorities, that is fine. I have heard those criticisms in the past few weeks, but nobody has named the authorities and no evidence has come to me that authorities have done that. If any authority was reluctant to engage with teachers and others I would be concerned, but I have no evidence that that was the case.
Because of the lack of substantive information attached to the report—which was very flimsy indeed at two-and-a-half pages long—we carried out some of our own research on what local authorities were up to. Perhaps I can refer you to some of that research—
Sorry—can you clarify who you mean by “we”?
The Labour Party carried out its own consultation. Representatives from a city-based local authority told us that the district inspector met the senior education manager, one headteacher and four members of staff—it was not defined whether those members of staff were teachers. When we asked a rural local authority whether Education Scotland had met with departmental heads and/or classroom teachers, the answer was, “Solely with the director of education”.
Would you like to name those authorities?
No, I would not at this stage, but I can provide you with the information at a future date. It does not seem like a deep audit—it seems like a minor surface scratch.
I do not think that the two-and-a-half page report that was issued to the management board is in any way a flimsy document. It tells you not only about the contact that has taken place and to which I referred when I quoted Bill Maxwell, but the 149 visits to schools and the 223 further engagements and events with the education sector.
Is it not part of the problem that, although you like to portray everything as being hunky-dory and fine, whether in the school or college sectors or other sectors, that portrayal is so divorced from the reality of what people are experiencing on the ground that it lacks credibility?
That is your opinion. I hazard a guess that I spend more time in colleges and schools than you do, Mr Findlay. I am open to discussion with that sector every single day; I get substantive contacts from all the sectors every single day; and I listen to everything that is said to me. When I make the case that the work that has been done by education professionals in schools, local authorities and Education Scotland—who have done and continue to do the jobs that they are employed to do—that is not saying that everything is hunky-dory; it says that people are working hard and they should not be undermined by speculation that has no basis in fact.
I will leave it there for now, although I want to ask a further question later.
I have a question about the implementation process of curriculum for excellence, aside from all the disputes about terminology. Do you regret the fact that the timescale for the development of course materials was rather far removed from the timescale for the introduction of the exemplars for exams? Many teachers have said that that is the main thing that has concerned them.
That is a fair point. If I say that I agree with you on that, people will run around saying that there is something wrong with the materials. However, I will say that an objective assessment, when the story is written, will point out that there might have been a better way to do it, although I cannot think of any curriculum innovation in which that did not happen. Interestingly, as Liz Smith knows, one of the key issues in the agreement with the EIS was to bring forward additional materials for teachers. That is in point 3, which I will read out, as it is important. It states:
Do you accept that there is a bit of a philosophical dilemma because of the principles of curriculum for excellence, under which schools can have flexibility in whether they offer a two plus two plus two model or a three plus three model, or whatever it might be? We heard this morning slight concerns about the fact that the two plus two plus two model means a slightly earlier decision for some children, which could affect the breadth of their education.
Let us accentuate the positive. I do not fundamentally disagree with you, but I would not necessarily sign on to the terms that you have used. Let us agree on the fact that the transition from the two plus two plus two model to the three plus three model—which, at the start of the process, many people thought would be seamless and universal—has not taken place in the same way. What we now see is, in essence, a hybrid. Larry Flanagan was absolutely right—I heard him stress this—that what matters is what happens in the third year and that, provided that a broad general education is where it is, the choices are another matter and do not affect it. That is also what Ken Muir was referring to when he said that he was not dictating a curriculum model, but that there were some concerns about a broad general education.
The logic that you have just enunciated suggests that it might have been better to have a staged process, rather than to insist that schools changed all at the same time.
I am not sure that that is true; I think that there is a wider issue. I am genuinely not trying to make differences, because I think that this is a positive discussion. There is a wider context of how a major curriculum change in education should be undertaken. I do not think that it can be staged—it is necessary to start it and go to completion.
We have used the staged approach before.
The lessons from that suggested that the right way to do things is to start the process and to finish it.
We will hold you to that, cabinet secretary.
Indeed.
You mentioned the number of referrals that you have had as a result of the audit and from the SSTA and the EIS. Are you confident that Education Scotland and local authorities, through collegiate support, can bring the departments that have been identified to a position in which they can deliver the next phase?
Yes. I have dug a bit deeper into some of the information that has been provided to me, and I have asked questions. One or two of the situations in question—perhaps more—have been caused by staff illness and disruption within a department. That is perfectly understandable but, in such cases, we and the local authority must bring additional resources to bear.
I want to follow up on Liz Smith’s point about the two plus two plus two model, on which we heard from Education Scotland and the unions earlier. Education Scotland could not tell us how many schools will be adopting that model. It was mentioned that 30 to 40 per cent of pupils could have started studying subjects in which they will gain national qualifications without their teachers having course materials or exam materials. Do you think that that is acceptable?
I do not think that it happens. I cannot imagine any course starting without the teacher having the materials that they wish to use on that course. That is misunderstanding the nature of what is taking place. Materials are provided.
Do you think that Education Scotland and the Scottish Government should know how many schools are teaching using the two plus two plus two model? Will you ask Education Scotland to find that out as a matter of urgency?
Ken Muir said that he would come back to the committee with the information. There are a number of models. Ken Muir indicated to you that hybrids are developing and change is taking place. I am not sure that a great deal can be learned about telling the time if we take the clock to pieces. A process of change is going on in Scottish education. It is being supported. It is now obvious that the important thing that would be picked up in any inspection or support activity is that, in the third year, the principles of a broad general education are maintained. That is known, spoken about, and in the Education Scotland material that supports schools. That is what matters.
We have a lot to get through this morning so I want to move on from curriculum for excellence to attainment, on which we took evidence earlier in the year. Education Scotland recently published the quality indicator summary tables for Scotland, which look at all schools that were inspected between 2008 and 2012. There was a lot of publicity around that, particularly around the fact that the tables show that 10 per cent of all the schools that were inspected are not meeting positive criteria. What are your views on that publication?
It is worrying when any school in Scotland does not meet the positive criteria. Fortunately, our system follows that up. If any school fails to meet the criteria, a follow-up process of inspection and support kicks in to try to take that school through to success. I read the other day about a school south of the border that had failed inspection five times in a row. I am sure that that could not happen in Scotland, because there is a process of support that will continue until the school is where it should be.
As you mentioned Pasi Sahlberg’s lecture, I will refer to it in my question. He stated clearly the importance of quality in teachers and of all teachers in particular areas having masters degrees. He said that not only are those teachers respected for their professional development, but they are, in effect, leaders in schools and in classrooms in particular. What is your opinion on his views and on the importance of leadership in schools?
I accept that entirely, which is why we have had the Donaldson review; the McCormack review also partly relates to those issues. I have emphasised that we are moving towards masters-level education for teachers, and we will get there; that is part of the Donaldson review.
I want to ask about attainment and the figures that have been produced. We have been given examples of schools in which it appears that 80 per cent—or whatever—of children have passed at a high level, and yet some children are not even entered for the exams. If those schools are not including all their pupils, those figures are somewhat false. Some apparently top-performing schools have children who are failing very badly, while some schools that are not viewed as top performers are changing children’s lives.
I believe in what is called rich attainment. Attainment is not simply about examination results, although we should not underplay the importance of those results: there is irrefutable evidence that the better educated one is, the more exams one passes and the better outcomes one has.
Do you have proposals for how we can achieve that attainment, particularly with regard to looked-after children? Their attainment is of serious concern, and the committee has taken evidence on that subject.
Without a doubt. Our collective corporate parenting over the past decade has left much to be desired. However, those figures are improving, and the evidence that the committee took and the recommendations that it made have been very welcome.
I have asked you about pupil premiums before, but I am sure that you will respect my right to keep trying. As you have pointed out, despite the collective effort made by successive Governments and the resulting marginal improvements, there is still a significant gap. Can you be persuaded that even piloting the pupil premium in a part of Scotland is at least worth trying?
I should try to be as constructive as possible this morning, so let me put it this way: there is a very strong argument that we will need to find resources to put into the most difficult areas in order to make a difference. That will be difficult at the present time, but the issue is worth discussing. If you choose to call that a pupil premium pilot, how can I stop you?
Returning to Jean Urquhart’s question about the measurement of attainment and the way in which schools are assessed on the basis of how they are delivering for their pupils, I note that you suggested earlier on the record that you would expect directors of education to know a thing or two about what is happening in their schools. However, ADES has suggested that under the principal component analysis many very successful schools are failing children and that
Interestingly, your question relates to the issue of school handbooks that the committee discussed this year and parents’ clear desire for a broader rather than a narrow set of measures in order to understand the school that their child attends.
A report that came out last week or the week before said that Scotland is falling further behind England in terms of attainment. I certainly welcome your view that we need to put additional resources into areas of multiple deprivation and I am interested to hear how you intend to do that. My view is that many schools would choose to reinstate some of the support staff such as classroom assistants, educational psychologists and so on who have gone from schools but who play a vital role and have such an impact on some of our most vulnerable young people.
My response to that question is in two parts. First, to be blunt, the report that the member mentioned compared things that cannot be compared. You cannot compare two different exam systems; indeed, I was rather interested to learn that, after much was made by your colleagues about this matter, Michael Gove decided to abolish that exam system because, according to him, it was not producing results and because it was also suffering from grade inflation. Such a comparison cannot be and should not have been made. One compares education systems by using the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—according to which our score is marginally better than that south of the border and is improving. We will continue to look at that matter.
Can you confirm that you will be making the case for those resources to your colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth?
I will make the case for the spending that I think is necessary for Scottish education within the overall context of the public finances. Would that I could make that case in the context of a fully independent Scottish Parliament that had control of its own resources. That would make the most enormous difference. However, within the present artificial and constrained circumstances, I will go on arguing for money for Scottish education.
You have already startled me this morning by accepting one of my proposals, cabinet secretary. I do not want to go too far in that direction.
We have achieved rich attainment.
You said that one of the key problems in areas of deprivation was poverty of ambition and expectation. That sort of poverty has been challenged very successfully by the Sistema Scotland project in the Raploch, as evidenced by last week’s big noise concert. When you look at the issue of equity, will you also consider equity of access to extra-curricular cultural and sporting activity?
You know me well and will never hear me doing anything other than support a cultural project like the one established by Sistema Scotland. In fact, it is much more than a cultural project; it is an educational and social project. I have visited the project twice and have been bowled over by what I have seen. I pay huge tribute to the staff who work there—particularly Richard Holloway, who has done a fantastic job in taking the project on as his own—and I want the project to expand into other places. The question of how that might happen is not for me to discuss this morning, but I will say that I am a fan of Sistema.
I realise that I cannot persuade you to change certain school management structures, but what is your view on suggestions that we need a little more diversity and flexibility in schools and that some of the better systems of measuring attainment should be used by schools to measure their own performance instead of being used in a school-against-school way in a local authority? Would you consider moving in that direction?
I am open to persuasion and suggestion.
Really?
Yes, indeed—and I certainly am with regard to local authorities. We need to understand the situation with delivery. The fact is that local authorities are very much masters in their own house; you have criticised that in the past and I might even have said a word or two about it myself. However, if a local authority wanted to do something different, I would be very interested in hearing about it. No local authority has done that, but if one of them were to say, “We want to compare this with that” or whatever, I would listen to it—just as long as I am not criticised for failing to impose a uniform approach in Scotland. I am certainly interested in hearing any such proposal.
Just to take up Clare Adamson’s point, I point out that absolutely outstanding things such as the big noise have come about through diversity, flexibility and thinking outside the box. Many local authorities are simply not thinking outside the box, because they have neither the finances nor the incentive to do so. Would moving in that direction not engender a bit more excellence in our system?
Absolutely.
Then why are we not doing so?
We could have a very long debate about that, but I can show you some examples of local authorities that are thinking out of the box. The more that think creatively and imaginatively, particularly in a time of strong financial restraint from the Westminster Government, the happier I will be. You will not find me an enemy of imaginative thinking, as long as it is thought through, rigorous and constructive.
I will ask about attainment and teacher employment. One witness floated the idea of teachers having five-year fixed-term contracts. Will you rule that out?
Let us come to the issue with a sense of rationality, shall we? As I said, we have the best record on teacher employment in the whole of these islands. We have taken a difficult situation—created in part at least by an oversupply of teachers from the Administration up to 2007—and started to resolve it.
We know that looked-after children are often excluded from extra-curricular sport, art and cultural activity. The greatest pity of that is that such activities, which local authorities have funded, are often not at capacity, but a lack of communication means that information does not get to looked-after children, who might not have direct parental control to recognise development. How do we resolve that?
Our group that works on looked-after children continues to address that issue and to encourage local authorities to be flexible. There are access and flexibility issues, but we would like to and will encourage involvement as much as possible for normalcy and we would like increased access to extra-curricular activity.
The Government has made no secret of the fact that the early years are a priority. Some witnesses said that some duplication and patchiness in service provision still existed across the country. How do you react to that evidence? If you agree with it, how will you resolve the situation?
Are your questions specifically about the early years?
Yes.
The highest standard of in-service provision needs to be available across the country. Across education and not just in the early years, we are trying to ensure that in-service provision is sustained and guaranteed. It is up to each local authority to provide that in the right way. Local authorities are probably doing that. Glasgow City Council has looked at early years provision radically—some of its solutions have not found favour, but some have. I know that driving up the quality of staff is important.
How is that achieved? We received evidence from the EIS and others about the importance of qualified teachers in the early years.
Remembering that this is a matter of persuasion rather than diktat, we have to persuade local authorities to, in essence, maintain the number of teachers even in the light of a falling number of children. It is hard to do that, but we are trying to persuade them to do so and to point out the benefits. That is part of the question whether we can continue to shift resources to support the early years, which is hard to do when budgets are being squeezed, but we will do our best.
I want to ask about childcare, which you referred to in your opening remarks. As you appear to be on your best conciliatory behaviour, I will leave aside the issue of when the commitment on childcare is to be met and whether it needs a legal underpinning. We are where we are, which is moving towards the proposed children and young people bill.
I want the bill to be enforceable. That is essentially the issue, and there is a commitment that that should be the case. The bill will be subject to amendment by others, and it will go through this committee. The issues of whether the bill is strong enough to make it enforceable, whether the financial memorandum is robust enough to ensure affordability, and whether the combination of issues can be well dealt with will be for this committee to discuss. We are mindful of all those issues and I hope that, together, we can get that to happen.
I suppose that the wider any bill is cast, the more scope there is to hang different issues on it. Will you be able to constrain the bill?
We know the key policy objectives. As you will know from your work as a special adviser, it is important to be absolutely clear what the policy intentions are. We know what the policy intentions are in relation to the delivery of childcare and the rights of the child. In those circumstances, the delivery of the policy intentions, which is something that Mike Foulis is charged with, will be the key issue.
Another point that has been made is about the indivisibility of childcare and early years education. I sense that that is a priority of the bill. Are you confident that you will achieve that?
That is a priority of the Government, whereas bills deal with specific policy actions, but we understand that issue and I do not think that we differ on it.
We all know that investing effectively in the early years releases funding later in the process, but targeting of existing resources is difficult, particularly at present. How can you ensure that the Government’s intention of targeting the early years—with resources, as well as other things—does not affect the universal delivery of services, for example?
That is the task.
That is why I asked you.
Indeed, and I would welcome your advice on it, because we need to keep a constant eye on it. People sometimes talk glibly about the transfer of resources. At a time when public expenditure is under considerable pressure, it is not an easy question to address, because there are many existing activities that we wish to continue and, if we decide not to continue them, people sitting round this table would be the first to criticise. Therefore, we have to make a judgment.
Thank you.
I agree with what you just said about data collection. The evidence that you took was compelling. We need to improve the system. The statistical information that was provided was a snapshot drawn from the schools management system and reflects only what was held in the system at the time. We must and will consider with stakeholders the statistical information that is collected to ensure that it is appropriate and consistent. We must develop better guidance to support education authorities and schools in recording such information. We will update the guidance with the advisory group for additional support because we feel that that requires to be done.
That is very welcome. Do you have a timescale for all that work?
Mike Foulis is indicating that Sarah Smith has that information. Can you give us a timescale, Sarah?
At the moment, we are considering the committee’s report. We can come back to you on the timing.
Can I ask for the timing for when you will come back to us on the timing? [Laughter.]
Okay. We will come back to you early in the new parliamentary term with the information on timing. However, I emphasise that we intend to do the work that I indicated.
I am sure that committee members are as delighted as I am that you have listened to the evidence that we have taken on the issue. We will take that forward.
My brief couple of years working in this area have shown me that we need education plans for children to be practical working documents rather than filing cabinet fodder. It is most important that the reports and plans that are provided are accessible to the child and their parents first, and then to professionals. I do not think that that is the order at the moment. Further, the format of the reports and plans is dry and inaccessible. Are there any moves to change things so that the system becomes much more workable?
Your criticisms are well founded and need to be taken into account as—
You have accepted two things that I have said today—Jeez-oh!
I know. One or other of us is mistaken—I just do not know which.
You will be aware that, as part of the evidence that we took on support for learning, we considered the Enable Scotland petition on the extent of the awareness among the teaching profession of learning disabilities, particularly autism. There was a concern that Enable itself was not represented on the bodies that are taking forward work in that area, and it was suggested that its views could be taken on board through an umbrella body. It would be helpful if you could set out how that could be achieved. We all know that the figures for those with autism are on an upwards trajectory, so it is inevitable that more emphasis will be placed on teachers being able to identify support needs and work with support staff to meet them.
All teachers need to be informed about a variety of additional support needs as part of their initial training or continuing professional development. I have worked closely with Jackie Stewart on dyslexia, on which he has been profoundly influential. He has spoken to each of the heads of the teacher training institutions, and his central concern is that the issue must be factored into the learning that takes place as it is really important that teachers are sensitive to it. I strongly support the taking of that approach across the board—not just on autism, but on a variety of other concerns.
That is helpful. On Enable’s position, if you are unable to provide a guarantee that it will be—
I will look at it.
Thank you.
My understanding of Enable’s point is that, although there is an option for teachers to look at additional support needs during their training, it is not broken down into specific areas, and we need much more specialised training. How is that being taken forward in our review of teacher training?
I think there is an acceptance that this work needs to be of the highest standards. The assurance that I have from the heads of the institutions—it was an assurance not just to me but to Jackie Stewart and a variety of other people—is that every teacher will have a knowledge of the issues when they leave teacher training college, and that is how it should be. If any teacher does not have that, we need to ensure that they get it, so I will ensure that we check that out.
As there are no further questions on attainment, we move on to the issue of services that are delivered by children’s charities. We heard evidence on that a couple of weeks ago. The Government has stated:
Local authorities need to have procedures and structures to ensure that they are involving the third sector. There are a variety of different structures, some of which I can remember off the top of my head and some of which are on a piece of paper that I am still looking for. For example, they need to look at public social partnerships, they need to look at the issue of community benefit and they need to look at the public sector markets that need to be open to the third sector.
How do you ensure that the public procurement programme does not promote a race to the bottom and that it can fully evaluate the added value of some of the projects, which is perhaps intangible and not easily evidenced in a bid?
I think that Mike Foulis knows more about that than I do, so he should answer that question, if that is acceptable.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. You will find out if I know more about it in a moment.
That is an interesting point. Private sector and voluntary sector representatives put it to us very forcefully in an evidence session that the problem is not that they are not consulted; the problem is with the timescale. Many of them said strongly that they would like to be in at the beginning of the process so that an efficiency programme is there at the start, rather than people having to come to it a bit later in the day. I ask the cabinet secretary to make a point of pursuing that with all those who have a stake in the provision of local authority and voluntary sector services.
That is an important point. We do not really get the benefit of the strategic element of strategic commissioning unless the right people are together at the start; otherwise, we do not have the base of information that we need to understand the situation and decide where we are going.
The significance of strategic commissioning was the strongest message that came through in the evidence session. I happened to be in conversation last week with some of the key people in Voluntary Action Orkney on that very issue, on which I have also been corresponding with John Swinney on and off over a number of years.
You could do worse than look at the Audit Scotland reports to see what the obstacles were. There was a lack of information—which I spoke about before—on which to base a strategic view of needs and therefore of provision, and a lack of skills and experience among the people who were doing the work; there were also difficulties around procurement in general. Procurement is a big complex thing, as everyone who is involved in it knows; there is a European Union dimension and so on.
Are you saying that there is a need for a degree of expectation management with regard to what we would like to happen and what is achievable? Is it the case that, even given some of the models that you are currently working up and the forthcoming legislation on sustainable procurement, we may be some way short of where certain voluntary groups—or even the private or independent sector—may want to be on strategic commissioning?
That could be the case. We ought to be ambitious and aim to get to a better place. However, a better approach to commissioning on its own does not multiply the amount of money that you have by a large factor. It can make you more effective, but you are still basically dealing with the same situation.
As there are no further questions on that area, we will move on.
The “School Estate Statistics 2011” document already contains a snapshot of the situation. Table 8 sets out the annual capital and revenue spend on the school estate.
The issue was raised last week in evidence. I raise it because the SFT said that it provides expertise to ensure that efficiencies and savings to the public purse are maximised in such capital programmes. If the SFT has the expertise and the ability to save money on such projects—in one project, £4 million was saved—it would seem sensible for that expertise to be shared throughout the capital building programme.
We encourage such sharing to take place. For example, the SFT holds regular workshops and training sessions for local authorities and encourages the sharing of such skills and expertise. We are keen for that to happen, and we will continue to stress that in the bilateral meetings that will take place later this year. Of course, there is a general duty on local authorities to get best value, and we would expect them to demonstrate that they do that with school building projects. I have no reason to believe that that does not happen, but we would expect them to demonstrate that it does.
Another issue that was raised in the session on school buildings was the number of schools that are to be delivered through the budget, which has gone up from 58 to 67. The representative from SFT was clear that much of that was due to changes in the market dynamics, which meant that what could be bought for the same amount of money had increased. There had also been efficiencies in tendering and even in shared design costs. All of that makes sense, but the ADES representative pointed to changes in the area per pupil specifications. As you will be aware, a number of local authorities are concerned about the effect of that on what they are expected to put out to tender and the implications that it will have for what they can deliver in the school environment as a result.
Broadly, it is going in the right direction. There will always be disputes between the client and the funder about the exact nature of the package but, in my experience, all such disputes have been resolved amicably and the project has been able to move ahead.
In some of the evidence that we have received, questions have been raised about the design and use of a single space in the middle of a school for multiple purposes; I am sure that members of the committee will have experience of the issue in some of the new-build schools in their areas. On the face of it, that seems an efficient use of the space, but some people believe that it has led to a lack of rooms that could be used at the same time. In the design process, we are rightly focusing on efficiency and maximising value for the public purse, but is that having a detrimental effect on the space that is available for pupils? Is it restricting the ability to maximise the activities that they do in that space?
It is not being done ad hoc. There have been debates and discussions. The document “School Design: Optimising the Internal Environment—Building our Future: Scotland’s School Estate” provides guidance on some of the issues, and there is other documentation. I return to the point that there will always be a debate between the SFT or any other funder or provider and the client. That is a healthy debate and issues are being exchanged. Each one of those debates ends up amicably and produces a grade A school. I have not heard anything to the contrary, and the schools that I have seen that have been done through the programmes have been first class.
I have a final question before we move on. Last week, an issue was raised about the timing of the next announcement on the school building programme. Can you give us clarity on that? I think that Mr Findlay raised the issue of whether enough time has been left post the local authority elections, particularly for authorities in which the administration has changed.
We deliberately factored that in. We do not want to hang about, but we have extended the process a bit. The process opened in February and the closing date for applications is 21 July. Therefore, there has been time for local authorities to develop plans and, where new administrations came in, time for them to consider whether they wanted to alter the plans. We have the right programme. I had conversations before February with local authorities that wanted to talk to me about the issue. I am open to such discussions, but we need to get a move on, as there is a demand to do these schools. I anticipate being able to tell the successful bidders by the end of September. We are not being prescriptive about the types or anything like that. Across most local authorities, there is general agreement.
As there are no further questions on school buildings, we have some time to discuss other issues that are of interest to members. We will begin with Neil Findlay.
Cabinet secretary, do you accept that there is a youth unemployment crisis in Scotland?
I accept that there is a very serious situation and that, fortuitously, it is being addressed with absolute seriousness by the Scottish Government.
In some areas of my region, youth unemployment is almost hitting 50 per cent. Is that a crisis?
The Scottish Government’s work to address the very serious situation on youth employment should be supported across the Parliament. We should all focus on meeting our objectives.
At what point would you describe the situation as a crisis?
I will not give you a press release or a headline; I will treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves and support the work of my colleague Angela Constance and of the whole Government—and, I had hoped, of the whole Parliament—to ensure that we meet the issue head on and tackle it. We are doing that with additional resources and a vast amount of energy and commitment to our young people.
I believe that we are at a crisis point, given the levels of youth unemployment in some areas. Will you talk us through the logic of a further significant cut to the college budget this year, which will take many thousands of places out of the system and which people simply do not understand?
I am sorry that you do not understand, Mr Findlay. You speak for “people”, but I do not know who those people are, because I speak to people in the college sector every single day. By and large, the college sector has welcomed the changes that are taking place and is focused on getting the maximum value for money and on delivering the number of places that we guaranteed and which are being delivered. The sector is also focused on the opportunities for all programme, which means that no young person aged 16 to 19 will fail to be in employment, education or training. Those are significant steps forward.
The people I am talking about are those whom you and I met a few weeks back, who told you about college courses with almost 100 applicants for a dozen places.
Well, the people—
Let me finish, please. This is not made up. Given the crisis in youth unemployment, I find the move to cut college numbers again simply illogical.
Others had better know why I met you and who we are talking about, because you appear to be inadvertently misrepresenting the situation. I met you and student and staff representatives from the rural colleges that were merging with the Scottish Agricultural College, and the purpose of the discussion—at least as represented to me and those present—was to focus on merger issues and to ensure that the merger was successful. You had asked the student and staff representatives to come and see me to discuss the matter and ensure that the process was undertaken properly, and I listened attentively to what they had to say. I did not think that it was designed to be used by you as a political tool at committee. What you have done is rather unfortunate and unfortunately misrepresents the serious and productive discussion that we had on taking the merger forward.
But you cannot deny that they raised the issue of the number of applicants for courses at a time of high youth unemployment.
Absolutely—and I pointed out to them a number of things in the context of the merger. First of all, places were not being cut, which is something that you did not point out. Secondly, I also made it clear that the new institution would offer new opportunities. I would have hoped that those people went away reassured by our discussion about the merger; indeed, they certainly indicated as much to me. At no time during that discussion was it represented to them—or to me—that they would become political fodder for this committee. Mr Findlay, you might, on reflection, consider that what you have done will make it more difficult for me to meet you again in such a context.
I think that that is a ludicrous statement.
We will continue and finish the process of reform, which has been well supported, and on which I will report further on Thursday. It will transform the college sector and increase opportunities for young people. That is a positive move, particularly given the cuts that the Westminster Government is making, and which your party very much supported and would have made. After all, you wanted cuts that went further and deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s.
At that point, I suggest that we move on.
I was interested to see last week’s figures that showed unemployment in Scotland to be falling for the third month running and an Ernst & Young report that said that foreign direct investment was strongest in Scotland. How might either of those factors impact on youth unemployment?
No one can deny that we are in very difficult times. I suggest—and I think that you will agree—that in greatest part our way forward is to ensure that the Parliament has full fiscal powers to allow us to make our own decisions. That would be a much better situation. Even those who do not accept such a prescription will accept that the cuts are—I regret to say—causing difficulties throughout these islands. I think that the right way forward is to have policies that grow the economy, which is very much what we are trying to do within our limited powers. I pay tribute to John Swinney for that activity and to Angela Constance for her work on youth employment issues.
Staying with the issue of youth employment, I attended a youth action summit that was hosted last Thursday in Dumfries by the minister Angela Constance. It was a very positive event and it was greeted as such by most of the people who attended. As you will know, at the summits we work with small groups of young people, employers and educators, and one issue that emerged strongly from the young people in several groups was that they were less aware of opportunities that were being provided while they were in school. In other words, they might not have been getting information in school about apprenticeship opportunities and the Government’s different schemes.
That is a good point and we will take it away and look at it. Fortunately, two of the people with responsibility in that area are sitting on my left and right, and they and I will look at what I think is a good suggestion and raise it with Angela Constance.
On a point of clarification regarding the merger of the agricultural colleges, whose work is very relevant to the region that I represent, I note that the merger is not a new proposal; it has been discussed and, indeed, desired for some time now. Having attended two of the public consultations, I know that there is enormous support for the move and, far from any courses being cut, there is actually the possibility of extending them into areas where they have not been before.
You represent the situation very well; the move does provide the opportunity that you have highlighted. I agreed to meet Mr Findlay and his constituents to address their concerns as staff and students about the merger process and I am glad that I did so. I am sorry, however, that they have been treated in this way at this meeting. I want to confirm to them that I listened closely to their comments and read every single submission to the process, because I was concerned that it needed to be done properly. I have received a document from the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council that makes a recommendation and I will shortly make an announcement on that. The move has long been sought and I realise that it must be a proper merger, not a takeover. I was happy to address the matter with staff and students, but the move presents—and has been presented to me as having—major benefits.
I want to raise two quick points. First, the Parliament has been united on ensuring that British Sign Language attains a better position. How is the Government helping that aim?
It has been very supportive. I will ask my colleague Alasdair Allan, who is responsible for Scotland’s languages, to write to you on the matter and tell you precisely where he is on the issue.
That will be helpful.
I was going to say in my opening remarks that I did not want to pre-empt Thursday’s statement, but I left out that sentence. Perhaps I should have left it in. I will address both issues in the statement and the member will, of course, have the opportunity to question me on them. I should say, however, that things are going well.
In that case, I will ask you the question on Thursday.
On that optimistic note, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials on behalf of the committee for their most interesting and informative evidence.
Previous
Curriculum for Excellence