Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2015. I remind all those present that electronic devices should be switched off at all times.
We begin by taking evidence on the Education (Scotland) Bill from Scottish Government officials. This is the first time that we have considered the proposed legislation. The session will allow us to ask a number of factual questions about the bill. We will have a more detailed discussion on the policy intention with the cabinet secretary in June.
Today’s session will inform those who have still to make written submissions to the committee about the bill’s provisions. We hope that the Education (Scotland) Bill’s provisions on attainment will overlap and help with the committee’s inquiry into the attainment gap.
I welcome Kit Wyeth, Douglas Ansdell, Laura Meikle and John Paterson from the Scottish Government. Kit Wyeth will kick off with an opening statement.
Thank you very much, convener. The Education (Scotland) Bill contains a range of measures that are designed to improve the education system in Scotland. The provisions in part 1 of the bill are a key part of the Government’s overall approach to tackling inequalities of outcome. In the education context, inequality of outcome is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in the attainment gap, where children and young people from disadvantaged communities perform less well in school.
Specifically, the bill proposes a requirement for education authorities and the Scottish ministers to attach greater significance to narrowing the attainment gap, making it a priority for all. The introduction of reporting duties will ensure increased accountability at the local and national levels.
The new measures will sit alongside a range of existing activity on attainment. The programme for government announced the read, write, count campaign, the introduction of a network of attainment advisers—one in each local authority area—and the Scottish attainment challenge. The challenge is supported by a £100 million fund and is targeted at local authorities that have the biggest concentration of primary school pupils who live in deprived areas.
Ministers have also made clear their commitment to creating a secure future for Gaelic. Part 2 of the bill contains measures that will contribute to that. In particular, the bill will give parents a right to request Gaelic-medium primary education and place a duty on education authorities to assess the request. The bill will also require councils to promote and support Gaelic education and Bòrd na Gàidhlig to prepare guidance on the operation and delivery of Gaelic education in schools.
Part 3 of the bill proposes a number of measures as part of ministers’ improvement agenda, including new rights for children under additional support for learning legislation and extending rights that are currently available to parents and young people to children aged 12 and over who have capacity. Other provisions include a requirement that education authorities each appoint a suitably qualified and experienced chief education officer to provide professional advice on the carrying out of education functions, and the introduction of statutory timescales in the section 70 complaints process. That will address a consistent concern that the process under which ministers consider complaints about the failure to carry out education duties is overly lengthy.
There is also a requirement for compulsory registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland for all teachers in independent and grant-aided schools. That will offer assurance to parents that, irrespective of where their children are educated, the standards and quality of the teaching staff will be regulated by the GTCS.
There are also technical amendments on free school meals and on the entitlement of all children who have a guardian to mandatory early learning and childcare provisions. Neither of those will result in any policy change, but they will offer greater clarity and accuracy.
That is all that I want to say by way of introduction. We are now happy to take any questions from the committee.
Thank you very much, Kit. We will go straight to questions, starting with Mark Griffin.
I have a number of questions on part 1. First, I would like clarification of a definition in section 1(3), which is about reducing inequalities of outcome
“experienced by pupils which result from socio-economic disadvantage”.
What will the definitions of reducing inequalities of outcome and socioeconomic disadvantage be?
Section 3 refers to the statutory guidance that the Government will produce, and a lot of that definitional stuff will be picked up in detail in that. We are talking about inequality of outcome in the education context, and we are looking to use the bill to improve the life chances and outcomes for all our children and young people in all our schools. We are looking not just at exam results but at achievement in its wider sense. That is an integral part of the curriculum for excellence approach.
When we talk about CFE levels, we are talking about not just the knowledge that the children have but their skills and attributes. That is a fundamental part of the broad general education that takes pupils through from primary 1 to secondary 3. It is about giving them the skills, ambition and know-how to succeed in whatever they choose to do once they move beyond school.
You spoke about the guidance and regulations that will be issued along with the bill. Is any consultation being done on what the regulations will contain? Specifically, as well as pupils who are disadvantaged for socioeconomic reasons, will the guidance cover issues such as the attainment gap between deaf pupils and hearing pupils? Are you able to give examples of what will be covered in the regulations other than the socioeconomic reasons?
You asked first about consultation. We are conscious that the provisions were included in the bill without wide-ranging consultation in advance of its introduction. We have been discussing part 1 in general with all our key stakeholders, and talking about how we target support for children from disadvantaged communities and more widely. The regulation-making power in section 1 allows us to bring in additional groups of children and young people, and ministers are open minded about using that power on introduction.
No firm decision has been taken on that as yet, but it is exactly the kind of thing that you are talking about. It concerns children who have certain disabilities, looked-after children and children from minority ethnic communities, for instance. There is evidence that children from those groups do not perform as well as others. As I say, ministers are open minded about making regulations for that.
What information is being gathered to establish a baseline so that the Government can evaluate the performance of local authorities to see whether the attainment gap has reduced?
The most immediate work on a baseline is being carried out as part of the attainment challenge, and is considering where things lie within the authorities that receive funding under the challenge. Whatever baseline is put in place for the seven authorities concerned, it needs to apply across the country as a whole. Although an immediate focus is given to the funding that is there, the focus needs to be across the country as a whole. That work will be developed over the following weeks and months.
How will authorities define whether an inequality has arisen because of socioeconomic disadvantage or for some other reason? I am thinking in particular about whether authorities will be able to decide that an inequality has arisen as a result of a reason that is not covered by the bill. Who makes that call?
That kind of thing would be picked up as part of the reporting requirement under the bill. That concerns how local authorities, and indeed ministers, are looking to focus and target their efforts to narrow the attainment gap.
As regards the current evidence, the programme for international student assessment, the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy and the other measures of pupil achievement and attainment tend to use the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, which takes account of where children live, including their postcode area, in determining whether or not they are most disadvantaged or less disadvantaged, as the case may be. That is a relatively well-established means of determining where children are from. However, authorities will also want to take account of local circumstances in identifying which children need particular help and support.
Some of the questions that I wished to ask have already been asked but, on outcomes, I assume that there will be no target setting under this whole objective, and that we will be considering outcomes annually.
Yes, absolutely. The key element is to have outcomes for all children in Scotland. We are moving into a phase of having national qualifications based around curriculum for excellence, and they are already starting to take account of that broader CFE approach around skills and attributes as well as knowledge.
The work on developing the young workforce is an acknowledgement of the fact that some children will not necessarily go down the academic route. There is an opportunity to allow those children to achieve well and to prepare themselves for later life and work, whatever their particular attributes and interests.
Okay—I should have said “good morning” earlier, by the way.
I am glad that we will not be driven by targets in this particular area. It is important that we consider the outcomes.
One of the two key elements is achieving consistency across Scotland. Within each local authority area, the appointment of the chief education officer becomes paramount. What skills do you think the chief education officer should have?
The bill provides an opportunity for us to set out in regulations the exact qualifications that a person taking on that role should have. I think that what we need to—
I understand that, but my question was to you. What do you think those skills should be?
My answer is that it is not necessarily for me to determine that. We did not consult widely on those provisions before they were put into the bill and our intention is to run a full consultation on the regulations that are provided for in the bill to ensure that stakeholders get the opportunity to feed in and to inform our thinking about what those skills and qualifications should be.
Local authorities will clearly have a key role to play in informing that discussion. After all, the provision is designed to benefit them by ensuring that they have somebody within the organisation who can provide them with the professional advice that they need to carry out their education functions.
09:45
But it is important that we achieve consistency and that we do not just look at deprived areas within a local authority area and then find that we have one local authority area that is lagging behind or is way ahead on provision. Following on from the question about the role of the chief education officer, how do you think that we might secure that consistency?
I am not quite sure what you mean—
I mean consistency across local authorities. We are talking about outcomes, not targets. A large part of the responsibility for achieving the outcomes will fall on the chief education officer. That is why I asked the question.
The regulations will ensure that the qualifications that are required of chief education officers will be the same across the country. We will be looking for a high standard of appointment across all local authority areas. The bill gives local authorities a bit of flexibility by giving them the opportunity to set out the experience and knowledge that they will be looking for in someone whom they wish to appoint, but the regulations will ensure that the qualifications and skills of the people who hold the post of chief education officer will be of a consistent standard across the country.
I have a sequitur to that. Under the bill, local authorities will have to prepare annual development plans that take account of their annual statements of education improvement objectives. I do not know how long it will take them to do that—not too long, I hope. Who will audit or oversee those plans?
The annual statement of improvement objectives comes from the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, which I think has been in place since 2000-01. Statements of improvement objectives generally tend to be local reports that are prepared and dealt with exclusively at local level. The bill proposes that local authorities and ministers will have a broader duty to report every two years. The reports will be published locally then brought together nationally by ministers so that we can see where things are across the piece.
As far as I am aware, not much auditing of the existing reports is being done at this stage. Certainly nothing is being done at the national level; the reports tend to be dealt with at a more local level. We propose a national level to the reporting process in the future.
What role will parents have in the oversight of the development plans?
The bill specifically gives parents a role by providing that local authorities should work with them and others in preparing their plans on work to narrow the inequality gap. We also think that, if local authorities publish the reports locally, it will give parents and other people in the local community the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the work that they are doing.
I will go back to some of the points that Mark Griffin pursued on part 1, which is on inequalities of outcome. The bill is designed to reduce inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. I am not sure that I know what that means. I know that Mark Griffin asked about that, but I will pursue the issue. How can whoever is responsible for reducing the inequalities of outcome—a local authority, for example—understand whether it is the fact that a pupil is suffering from socioeconomic disadvantage, or some other matter that is nothing to do with socioeconomic disadvantage, that is resulting in inequalities of outcome?
In raising attainment across the country, we are reliant on the professional judgment of teachers and the excellent work that they do in schools. We would expect a given teacher to understand where a given child was coming from and to understand their needs and circumstances and what additional support they might need to achieve as well as they can. That will not change. That responsibility of teachers will not—
I am sorry to interrupt. Perhaps I did not ask the question correctly. You propose to put in legislation a provision that says that we will reduce inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. Surely those who are responsible for doing that will have to understand exactly what they are supposed to do and to whom they are supposed to do it. I am still not clear about how that can be done.
If there is a local authority area with multiple postcodes or even a school that has pupils from different family backgrounds who have different socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages and there are various levels of equality of outcome, how will people be able to meet the demands of the bill to reduce the inequalities of outcome for the pupils who are suffering from disadvantage as a result of socioeconomic conditions? How will they know what to do to meet that bit of legislation?
The guidance will offer greater clarity on exactly what we mean by the terms in the bill and exactly how the activity should be targeted. Things such as the index of multiple deprivation indicate where children come from and their socioeconomic background. The results that children achieve in school will continue to be broken down by socioeconomic background as set out in the index of multiple deprivation. That will indicate to us and to local authorities whether they are making progress in respect of the children the bill seeks to target.
The difference between my question and your answer is that you are talking at the level of the SIMD and I am talking about an individual pupil. I understand that the overall picture on multiple deprivation may go up and down in various areas that are defined by postcode, but this comes down to individuals in local authorities or individual teachers doing work with individual pupils whom they have identified as suffering from inequalities of outcome because of socioeconomic disadvantage. I am trying to understand what will happen not at the statistical level but at the individual level.
Teachers already work well with individual pupils to seek to raise their achievement. The bill requires local authorities and ministers to have due regard to the issue when they make decisions about education. The key point is that we are not asking schools or local authorities to disregard all other considerations in making decisions; we are asking them to have regard to the issue as part of their work. Individual teachers know their pupils and will, in any event, target support to children depending on their needs and abilities. This is just something else that we ask them to bear in mind when they make decisions about providing support to pupils.
Who have you consulted? There is no published consultation on the attainment measures in the bill, but paragraph 25 of the policy memorandum states that
“there is consensus on the need to work to raise attainment and close the attainment gap.”
We have received evidence from parent groups and so on that they are not involved in the process. Have you spoken to national parents organisations, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland?
Yes. The provisions in part 1 came as a result of the programme for government, which was launched only towards the end of last year, so we could not run a full consultation on them before the bill was introduced. In the meantime, we have had a number of discussions with COSLA about the provisions and we have spoken to ADES at great length about them. Furthermore, we met the Educational Institute of Scotland and wrote to the other teaching unions so that they were aware of our proposals. We met the national parent forum of Scotland and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. We wanted to have had at least a discussion with all our key partners about the provisions before the bill came to the Parliament. The full intention is to consult more widely on part 1 as we move forward.
Has any of the groups raised concerns about the bill?
In general, there is an understanding that we need to continue to focus efforts on narrowing the attainment gap, and everybody supports that in principle. However, COSLA raised some concerns, because it does not feel that the provisions are particularly necessary. It feels that a lot of good work is going on already and that we should rely more on the existing work, rather than place an additional duty on local authorities.
So it is just COSLA. There is nothing unusual about that.
Kit Wyeth does not have to respond to that point.
Do not worry, convener—I was not planning to do so.
I will ask about the point that George Adam raised. Paragraph 25 of the policy memorandum states that
“there is consensus on the need”,
which you just mentioned,
“to work to raise attainment and close the attainment gap.”
One of the most critical issues is whether people work to raise attainment for all or to close the gap. The aim may be to do both but, if attainment is raised for all, does that close the gap or does everybody move up while the gap remains the same?
I completely understand your point. Ideally, we want the pupils who are performing at the top to continue to increase their performance but at a slower rate than those at the bottom do. We would like everyone to move up but to have the gap narrowing throughout that process.
We are taking evidence on the attainment gap as part of our committee inquiry, and something that has come up is that people do not really understand what we are measuring—what is out there. In answering questions earlier, you used the phrase “inequality gap”, and the terms seem to be interchangeable, except that they are different things—they mean different things. Do you mean different things, or are you using the words interchangeably?
Do you mean attainment gap and—
Inequality gap—they are different things to a lot of people.
Yes—I think that they are. I am not sure that I meant to say “inequality gap”. I do not think that I am familiar with that phrase.
We are pretty clear about what an attainment gap is, and we are talking about inequalities of outcome. When we talk about that, we are pretty well referring to the same thing—that some pupils perform well and others do less well. We are trying to make sure that everybody does better.
When the phrase was used, it was in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage, and we understand that there are inequalities there. However, that does not necessarily translate to every pupil’s ability to learn and to succeed. When we are taking evidence, we are trying to get it across to people that we are talking about attainment and not where the focus seems to be in part 1 of the bill. Do you agree with that?
Our focus in the bill is very much on raising attainment for everybody and ensuring that those who are in the lowest-performing groups increase at a better rate than everybody else. That is the driving force behind the provisions in part 1.
I apologise for being slightly late as a result of transport problems.
To follow up the convener’s question about closing the gap and raising attainment for all, we have previously had witnesses who wrestled with the dichotomy that, if we raise attainment for everybody, all that we do is move the gap upwards a notch. From the discussions that you have had with COSLA, ADES and others, is there a feeling that, to close the gap while raising attainment for all, resources and effort need to be targeted more on those who are seen to be underperforming?
Yes. There is a recognition—
I am sorry—to follow that up, is that the priority of ministers as well?
The priority is raising attainment for those in the lowest-performing groups—absolutely. It would be wrong to say that there are not aspirations to improve achievement among the highest performers as well, but the focus is very much on those who are in the lower-performing parts of the cohort. That is the reason for initiatives such as the attainment challenge, where—forgive me; I said this in my opening comments—the focus of the £100 million is on the poorest-performing pupils in primary schools.
I apologise again, as I did not hear your opening remarks, but I think that one problem with the attainment fund is the focus on areas. That ignores those who may be struggling to attain to their full potential in areas outwith those that have been designated by the SIMD criteria.
Your point about the aspirations of those who are highest performing tends to suggest that those with the sharpest elbows will make the most of the opportunities that arise and that the gap will not decrease but, if anything, is at risk of expanding more widely. What in the bill will help to close the gap, rather than restate the aspirations that, as you fully admit, everybody has had for some time?
The bill is part of the answer, but it is not the complete answer to what we want to do about narrowing the attainment gap. It sits alongside the attainment challenge, raising attainment for all, the read, write, count campaign and the other work that is going on across the piece. The bill is one element of the Government’s work on raising attainment and narrowing the attainment gap.
10:00
I will not go on about this but, in your opening statement, you focused on disadvantaged communities, and the bill talks about outcomes that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. As a member of Parliament for the Highlands and Islands, I can say that such an approach does not work up there, where someone with very low attainment could be living next door to a multimillionaire. My concern is that, because such individuals are not living in a socially disadvantaged area and many of them do not come from disadvantaged families, they could be missed out. I wanted to say that because I was concerned by your opening statement; I will now ask the question that I planned to ask.
George Adam made a point about COSLA. You might have been having discussions with it, but we have a submission from 23 April—less than a week ago—that suggests that it is certainly not happy with what you have brought forward. It says that the duty in part 1 is “unnecessary”, that the bill does not “enhance local democracy”, that it duplicates existing legislation and that it has not been consulted on. COSLA also asks:
“Why will local authorities have to report to Ministers and not to their communities?”
You can dismiss COSLA if you like, but it says that the bill fundamentally challenges local democracy and asks why there was no consultation on what is now the headline section of the bill.
I know that you said that the proposal was in the programme for government, but I have been here for quite a few years and I know that it is bad legislation that is not consulted on. The situation will lead to a lot of difficulties for the committee, too.
Will you explain the discussions that you have been having with COSLA? You have certainly not persuaded it that you have done a good job by bringing forward this headline section of the bill with no consultation.
First, I will reply briefly to your initial statement. We are conscious that it is not just children from the most socially disadvantaged areas of Scotland who perform less well. That is why section 1 of the bill enables us, through regulation, to extend the bill to other groups of children and young people. As I said, I think that ministers are open minded about using that and, if there is a feeling that we should do that, that is absolutely what we will do.
I hope so. The problem is that the regulations might not come until after next year. We do not know when we will see them.
If the committee were to ask to see the regulations, we could look to bring them forward.
On your other issue, we have met COSLA on a number of occasions. You are correct to say that we have not necessarily persuaded it of the value of the provisions. As I said in response to Mr McArthur, the bill is one element of our work to raise attainment. It is not the solution by itself, but it will bring the issue into focus and enhance its profile. That is a useful part of what we are doing.
The bill provides for local authorities to publish their reports as well as to report to ministers. Our expectation in our discussions with COSLA has been that publishing reports locally is about enhancing local democracy and local accountability. It is about telling people in local authority areas what the local authority is doing to help to narrow the attainment gap. That provides for local accountability as well as accountability to ministers.
This is a new element. We feel that ministers and local authorities should be accountable to Parliament for the work that is being done. That is why we are asking local authorities to provide information to us, so that ministers can include that in what they say to Parliament. That national accountability is quite an important part of the proposal, in addition to the local authority accountability for which the bill provides.
I do not have much more to say on public consultation than I have said already. The provisions came late in the day, and we have undertaken to consult fully on them as we move forward, in advance of stage 2. We will absolutely do that, and COSLA will continue to be very much in the forefront of such discussions.
I sincerely hope so. You can have a wee rest now, because I have a couple of questions on Gaelic.
I assumed that the bill would increase the provision of Gaelic-medium education. There are 11 sections on Gaelic, so I had quite high hopes in that regard. However, it does not create any entitlement to Gaelic-medium education. Instead, it creates a statutory process for assessing parental requests. What is the statutory process for assessing parental requests? Is it just a phone call to say, “Sorry, you are not getting it”? What does it mean? Is the bill intended to increase the provision of Gaelic-medium education? If so, why does it not require local authorities to provide it?
Good morning.
Good morning.
For a moment, I thought I was at the wrong committee meeting, but—
No. We have a wee set of questions for you. You are all right.
I am happy to respond. There are a few relevant points. Parents have talked about a right to Gaelic-medium education, and you used the word “entitlement”. As you point out, the bill clearly sets out a process to be followed after a parental request. If there was a right or an entitlement, a process would need to be followed. If parents had a right to Gaelic-medium education, we would still have to ask, “For how many children? In what area? Can we get a teacher?” As soon as we ask those questions, which are crucial questions for local authorities, we are into a process.
What we are trying to do is to put in the bill a good process—a process that is consistent throughout the country, open and transparent, and timed. None of those things is in place at the moment. We want to have a process that will give parents confidence that their request will be responded to. I do not think that we can avoid process, and—
A process is already in place. The Gaelic school in Inverness is expanding at a rate of knots due to parental demand, and it is obviously happy with that. Surely every parent in Scotland has a right to phone their education authority and say that they would like their child to learn the Gaelic language or to have Gaelic-medium education. Surely there is a process at present.
Every parent may approach their local authority and request Gaelic-medium education for their child, but there is no consistent process.
Sorry, but can I just ask what is different about the bill? What is a statutory process? Will you explain? I know that it would be consistent, but what is different compared with what happens now?
I will not identify any areas of the country, but some parents have been knocking on doors for 10 years requesting Gaelic-medium education. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the bill identifies that some parents have been asking for far too long, and it gets to a stage where the children for whom parents have requested Gaelic-medium education have moved on and it is no longer relevant to them.
But there is no guarantee that they will get it.
There is a guarantee that a certain process must be followed in an open, consistent and timed manner.
But the process could still lead to refusal.
The process could still lead to refusal if certain considerations are not met—for example, if there are not the numbers or if the local authority cannot secure a teacher.
Okay. Paragraph 30 of the policy memorandum states that the process
“has the potential to lead to a faster rate of growth”
in Gaelic-medium education. Paragraph 31 mentions that local authorities have
“the opportunity to send children to neighbouring areas.”
It also states:
“The ways in which these education authorities promote Gaelic is not currently specified.”
Are you saying that, if someone applies for their child to receive Gaelic-medium education, there will be a statutory duty on local authorities, if they do not have the resources to provide that, to send children to neighbouring areas? Will there be an obligation on local authorities to meet the parent’s demand and ensure that the child goes to a neighbouring local authority in order to learn Gaelic? Is there some guarantee at the end of this?
That happens already. Young people already go to other local authorities in order to receive Gaelic-medium education. However, sending young people across a border to another local authority will not form part of the duty on local authorities.
I am finding it difficult to understand what is different about the bill. If a parent has to wait 10 years, it will be too late. How will they get their child into Gaelic-medium education or at least learning Gaelic? What will the bill do for a parent who wants their child to get Gaelic-medium education? I just do not see what will be better than at present. I see a process, but I do not see an entitlement or a duty at the end of the day. That is what I am finding difficult.
We like to think that it is not just a process; it is a good process that entitles parents to submit a request. As soon as they have submitted that request, that triggers a process that has to run through in a certain time. The process will be open and transparent and—
I understand all that, but you said that it can still result in refusal.
Yes, indeed.
There will be a bit of bureaucracy to show that the due process has been gone through but, at the end of the day, will the bill lead to further demand for and provision of Gaelic-medium primary education in the 32 local authorities in Scotland?
That is your final question, Mary.
Yes. It is just that I have not got the final answer that I am looking for. I am sorry that I have had to ask more supplementary questions, but I am asking them because I do not understand.
We will let Douglas Ansdell answer.
There are two parts to the answer. I am confident that the bill will lead to faster growth in Gaelic-medium education throughout Scotland. I will give just one statistic. At present, we have 93 Gaelic early years groups, for little people aged zero to three, and 58 Gaelic-medium primaries. The parents who have their children in the early years groups have the potential to request a Gaelic-medium primary. We are putting in place a process for that.
Mary Scanlon said that the process could lead to parents being refused.
You said that.
We said it, but you offered it back to me.
We felt that we had to put a threshold of five young people. There is a reason for that. If the threshold is not met—say, if there are only two or three children—it will be reasonable for the local authority to look at the procedures and say that in its estimation, under the process in the bill, the threshold has not been met and therefore it will not proceed with Gaelic-medium education.
If five people want it, they will get it—
Sorry, Mary, but other members want to come in.
Mr Ansdell indicated that one reason why a local authority might not be able to respond positively to a request is an inability to recruit teachers. In recent months, the committee has heard evidence about the inability of local authorities to recruit teachers in a number of subject areas and about difficulties with providing materials for science education at primary and secondary level. We are painfully aware of the stresses and strains on education budgets in local authorities right across the country. What effect will the bill have in placing the provision of Gaelic-medium education in the list of priorities that education authorities will wrestle with?
The bill lists recruiting a teacher as one of the key considerations that a local authority will have to take into account when it assesses a request from parents for Gaelic-medium education—sorry, to be specific, it is Gaelic-medium primary education. The bill does not take any steps to increase the recruitment, training or placing of Gaelic-medium teachers. A range of measures are being taken to increase the numbers of people going into the profession, and those have been fairly successful recently. The number of people going into Gaelic-medium teaching has increased in recent years, which is encouraging. There are still gaps, however. That is probably one of the main obstacles that we are concerned about. Indeed, that will be one of the key areas of concern for local authorities looking at the bill. They will think, “That is all very well, but can we secure a teacher?”
The Government already has fairly specific requirements on teacher pupil ratios, and a number of local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have raised concerns about the situation—they see it as a straitjacket that they are being put into. If you apply the provisions in the bill, will you not simply be adding to the difficulties that local authorities have to deal with in meeting all the expectations that are placed on them by Government?
10:15
I do not think that we are adding to the difficulties, because the process that we are putting in place in the bill will be in local authorities’ hands. As they go through the various considerations in the process, it will be for them to look at the important question whether they can secure a teacher. There will be work to do with Bòrd na Gàidhlig about teacher provision in a particular year, but we are putting assessment of the possibility of securing a teacher in local authorities’ hands.
So it is only a question of whether they can secure a teacher, rather than the priority that they attach to the matter as opposed to the other considerations that they have to deal with, such as providing teachers to cover particular specialisms or providing materials to support teaching provision. The only issue is whether the recruitment of a teacher would be problematic.
No. There are a number of issues for local authorities, and we have tried to list them in the process.
Having listened to the responses that you have given—
Liam, this was supposed to be a supplementary question.
I will be very brief. My concern is that the bill risks raising expectations unduly among those who have been putting in such requests for some time. It follows on from an SNP manifesto commitment to
“examine how we can introduce an entitlement to Gaelic medium education”.
Is there not a real risk that parents who cross-reference that with what is in the bill and the process that local authorities will have to go through will come away thinking, “Nothing has changed at all. Local authorities will still be able to fob us off, albeit in a tighter timeframe than before”?
I understand the point. I think that some people will look at things and say, “That’s fobbing us off”, but local authorities will look at the same issues and say, “These are issues of substance. It is not a question of fobbing people off.” There are issues of substance that local authorities have to consider, be it teachers, cost, location or a building to house Gaelic-medium education in.
As you said, the manifesto uses the word “entitlement”. We have looked at the matter and consulted on it and we have taken the view that any entitlement still needs an element of process in order to be considered and delivered. What we have tried to do is to deliver a good process that responds to parents’ requests.
Chic Brodie has a quick supplementary question.
I hear what Douglas Ansdell says about process, but I am much more interested in the entitlement that has been referred to. What are we doing to promote the entitlement as opposed to hindering by going through a process?
There are three principal areas of interest in the part of the bill on Gaelic. One is that parents can submit a request for Gaelic-medium primary education. The next—
Forgive me, but we have heard that.
Yes. I am moving on from that.
I want to know what we are doing, with local authorities, to promote the entitlement. At the end of the day, I am interested in the children and the parents who wish to have the service fulfilled, and not in the process of how they get there, although that is important. What are we doing in the bill to promote the entitlement to Gaelic learning in local authorities?
I was just moving on from the process. The bill contains a duty on local authorities to promote and support Gaelic education from three to 18 and a duty on local authorities to promote to parents their right to request Gaelic education, and it will put a duty on local authorities, where Gaelic learner education or Gaelic-medium education is in place, to promote it. The bill also contains a duty on local authorities to support Gaelic education. Those things are in the bill as new duties, and they will be developed further in the guidance that Bòrd na Gàidhlig will prepare as a result of the bill. That will spell out in detail what needs to be done to promote Gaelic throughout Scotland.
Thank you very much. We will move on with Siobhan McMahon.
I have questions about the additional support needs provisions in the bill, particularly on the rights to be extended to children aged 12 to 15.
My first question is about paragraph 51 of the policy memorandum. It explains that extending the right to make placing requests to children could lead to a child attending a school that the parent does not agree with and so cut across the duty of a parent to ensure that their child is educated. Can you explain in more detail what is different about placing requests compared with other rights, which are in the legislation?
During the consultation, concern was raised about the extension of placing requests. At that time we proposed to extend all of the rights, but the consultation response indicated that there was concern, from parents in particular, about placing requests.
The very particular concern is that currently, under the additional support for learning legislation, parents and young people can make a placing request to a nursery, primary school, special school, independent special school or grant-aided school in their own local authority area, in another local authority area or, indeed, in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. If the right was extended to children, it is conceivable that a child could end up in a school that was in a very different part of the country from their family, and that would be disruptive to family life.
As a result of that concern, the decision was taken not to extend that right in the bill, both because of the consultation response and for practical reasons. If we had extended that right, a potential outcome would have been a child being placed in a school far away from the family.
The policy memorandum says, in relation to that point and to the independent mediation services as well, that a support service is being established. Could you give more details about what that support service would look like and who would be involved in it?
Another issue raised by the consultation was that if children’s rights were extended there would require to be support in place for children to be able to use their rights. In response to that, and in developing the proposals that we have brought forward in the bill, we worked out what would have to be done by the child in order to use each of the rights and what the associated process was.
It became apparent that there would be a requirement for four different types of support for children: advice and information, advocacy support, legal advice and representation—if a child was going to take a case to a tribunal, for example—and a fourth part about getting the child’s view, independently of others. There have been cases in the past where it has not been possible to get the child’s view independently of other parties—either the education authority or the parents—and therefore it has been difficult for the child to influence processes. Therefore, part of the support service will be about getting the child’s view, independently of others, to feed into the processes, so that we are clear about what their position is.
Our intention, as indicated in the financial memorandum, is that we will extend the services currently provided by Children in Scotland through enquire, which provides advice and information services. We will try to build those other services into a partnership with Children in Scotland, so that the four services will sit under one organisation. That is in recognition that a child may move between the different services, depending on which rights they are using. We are trying to bring the services together, so that a child can move backwards and forwards depending on the service that they need and so that there is a consistency of approach.
Thank you for that. You spoke about the process in your answer. Is it a similar process or the same process that currently happens for 16 and 17-year-olds?
It is the same process.
Okay. Finally, why was a test of best interest introduced for young people? What is best interest—how was that defined? Was it consulted on with young people themselves?
The best interests part was introduced alongside the change in the definition of capacity that we have brought forward. There were concerns that this group of children and young people—those with additional support needs—might use their rights in a way that would undermine their assessed needs.
As an example, let us suppose that an education authority and a family have asked for a child’s needs to be assessed and it has been established that speech and language therapy is required. The child, perhaps quite rightly, could have a disagreement with someone providing services for them—a speech and language therapist, for example. The child could want not to engage with that person any more, and that would be perfectly acceptable, but they could also use their rights to remove completely the support that has been identified as helpful to them.
For that group of children and young people, therefore, it was decided that we would introduce a best interests element. That will allow the parent to appeal the child’s use of their rights as a safeguard to ensure that they are being used in their best interests.
You asked what “best interests” means. We will produce guidance specifically on what “capacity” and “best interests” mean and on the assessment of those things. There will be both statutory and non-statutory guidance. We want to set out in statutory guidance the explanation of the legislation, but we also want to produce guidance about practice on some matters that are new to the area.
Was it consulted on with young people?
Sorry—I forgot to answer that. The original consultation was on the principles of whether children and young people should have rights, so that was consulted on, but we have not consulted children and young people on the specific provisions. We have discussed them with a range of stakeholders including the national parent forum of Scotland, ADES, COSLA and others that you would expect, but we have not discussed this aspect with children.
Do you plan to do that?
When we bring forward the guidance and the regulations associated with the bill, we will consult on all of that.
With young people?
Yes. With children.
Okay. Thank you.
I want to continue the discussion and focus on the practicalities of extending the rights to children aged 12 to 15. You said that it is important that we get the child’s view. It absolutely is, but how will their view be taken into account and what weighting will it be given in arriving at any decision?
In general?
Yes. These questions are all in general terms.
I was thinking that there would be a specific element in mediation, for example.
The way that the child’s view will be taken into account is that, as part of the decision-making process, it will have equal weighting alongside the views of the parent and the education authority—all the people who will be making the decision. That is the intent. We want children to be able to influence the provision that is there for them, so their view will have equal weighting.
The policy memorandum states that the bill extends rights to children aged 12 to 15 where the education authority considers that they have capacity. How will the education authority assess whether the child has capacity? Who will make the decision that they have the capacity to exercise their rights?
As I think I said, we will bring forward guidance on how that assessment will take place. We are aware from our consideration of these matters that a significant amount of information will be available in the child’s records and the experience of teachers and the family, who will know the child well from the 11-plus years that they have been part of the system.
There are circumstances in which it will be extremely clear immediately from that information whether the child has capacity. In some circumstances, that will not be immediately apparent, and there are other elements in the bill that will allow assessment to take place. In such cases, those elements will be enabled in order to make a specific assessment—for example, a psychological assessment. For the most part, however, we expect that the education authority—it is the education authority that will be required to make the decision—will use the information on the child that is already available to reach a view.
You said that the child’s view and the parent’s view will have equal weighting. If there is disagreement between the child and the parent about the correct way forward, whose view will be paramount?
In a circumstance where the child uses their right in a way that the parent disagrees with, the bill contains provision to allow the parent to appeal the capacity decision and the best interests decision. They will be able to ask for a review of the use of the right to ensure that it is in the best interests of the child. Although the two rights sit equally, there is a practical measure as a safeguard for parents to ensure that the child’s use of the right is proper and in their best interests.
Okay. Thank you.
10:30
I note that section 19 of the bill proposes to restrict further the powers under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to bring complaints to the Scottish ministers about education authorities that fail to undertake statutory education duties, specifically in relation to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. It also sets out that part of the complaints process would fall under statutory regulation provision.
It seems that fairly limited numbers of complaints have been made, so I am struggling to understand what the demand has been to restrict the provisions further and to further set out statutory specification of the process. Can you enlighten us on that point?
Yes, absolutely. There have been cases in the past where section 70 complaints, particularly around additional support for learning, have been about matters that are within the remit of the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland. As such, there have been circumstances in which the Scottish ministers have considered matters for which there is a specific body set up with the expertise to consider those matters. That presents a difficulty in that the Scottish ministers might make one decision on a matter, while the tribunal might have potentially reached a different decision. Decisions from both can be appealed to other legal bodies at a later point.
In order to be crystal clear about who should consider those matters, and to ensure that we make use of the body that is designed for the purpose, we have chosen to restrict section 70 complaints, but only in relation to the matters that can go before the tribunal. Anyone can still bring forward a section 70 complaint related to any of the other additional support for learning rights. The provision covers only complaints around co-ordinated support plans, placing requests and the other rights specified in section 19 of the bill, which we want to go to the body that was established for them. That is why we have brought forward that provision.
On your point about timescales, there have been concerns about the length of time that section 70 complaints were taking to be concluded. There was dissatisfaction, highlighted by parents, with the process and the system. We brought forward proposals to resolve those concerns and we consulted on them, but the consultation was not favourable toward them, so we have tried to address the original concerns by bringing forward timescales to try to reduce the length of time that complaints take to process.
What is the likely impact on the number of complaints brought forward of taking ministers out of processes that should be more rightly dealt with by the tribunal?
There was one occasion where five complaints on that type of matter were linked together. All the rest have come forward individually, so we do not think that this restriction will create a reduction in the normal running of section 70 complaints. Parents would usually choose the tribunal as a matter of course. A far higher number of complaints around those matters go to the tribunal than become section 70 complaints.
Was the reason that the complaints were coming to ministers confusion about the way in which the tribunals worked, or was it people chancing their arm because they did not think that they would get the response from the tribunal that they would get if they went down the ministerial route?
No, I believe that it was the belief that the matter was being brought to a minister’s attention that was the attraction in those particular cases. It was slightly more complicated than I am setting out for you, because the cases were linked together to try to establish that there was a systemic failure in a particular area.
We move on to the sections in the bill on the registration of teachers in independent and grant-aided schools. I understand that the policy intention is to require all teachers working in grant-aided and independent schools to be registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. It might have come as a surprise to some people that those teachers were not already required to be registered with the GTCS. However, that aside, the policy memorandum refers to the phasing in of the registration policy. Can you enlighten the committee on how long that would take?
I think that that will be influenced by the numbers involved. We understand that around 730 teachers who are working in independent schools at the moment do not have GTCS registration, and that about two thirds of them are likely to have other qualifications that would enable them to register immediately with the GTCS were the bill’s requirement to come into force.
There are 730 who are not registered with the GTCS.
Correct.
Out of a total of how many?
About 4,000.
Right.
We think that just over 200 teachers would need to get a qualification in order to continue to teach in those schools. We expect there to be a period of two years in which those people would seek the qualification that they needed, so the requirement would kick in in a concrete fashion a couple of years after the commencement of the provisions.
Of the roughly 730 teachers who are not registered, you expect that 500-plus would get registration automatically as soon as they applied. They have just not applied yet. Is that a fair way of putting it?
Yes.
So we are talking about a relatively small number of around 200.
Yes.
Do we know the range of qualifications that those individuals have? Are they totally unqualified or do they have some qualifications? What do they teach?
I do not know whether we know the answer to those questions. We can certainly try to find some more information and write to the committee, if that would be helpful.
I am curious about the fact that 200-plus individuals are teaching, albeit in independent schools, without qualifications or with qualifications that are not at least equivalent to those that would allow them to be registered almost automatically with the GTCS. I am slightly surprised by that and I wonder what level of qualifications they have. I would be interested in any information that you have on that.
Sure. We will follow up on that.
My second question is about the policy memorandum’s reference in paragraphs 104 to 106 to discussions that you have had with key stakeholders on the issue of registration. Have there been further discussions since the publication of the policy memorandum? If so, what have they been about and what have they led to? I am thinking about how registration would impact on the ability of independent and grant-aided schools to operate. Are those schools supportive of the proposed changes? Would registration impact particularly on certain schools rather than others, or would the impact be spread evenly across all the schools?
The conversations that we have had predate the publication of the policy memorandum. We have not had any discussions since then. At that time, we spoke to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, which was supportive in principle of GTCS registration for all the teaching staff. The bill provides for our making amendments through regulations to require registration. In respect of independent schools, those would be affirmative regulations, so there would be full consultation with all the schools and others affected as part of the process before the regulations were brought forward. The process is therefore on-going, rather than one that has happened already.
Is the problem spread evenly across the independent sector, or is it only particular schools that have a lot of unregistered teachers?
I think that, in the main, most of the independent schools that we are aware of already have the vast majority of their teachers GTCS registered or would be able to fulfil that requirement quite quickly. However, there could be a small number of smaller schools that generally will not have a majority of staff with GTCS registration.
That is what I was getting at. I wondered whether the registration issue would affect the larger schools or only some of the smaller schools.
I think that it is more likely to impact on the smaller schools.
Any update that you can give us on that would be welcome.
I would like to go back to the post of chief education officer and pick up on a couple of earlier comments. Section 20 requires education authorities to appoint a chief education officer with experience and qualifications as set out by the Scottish ministers in regulations. Earlier, in response to a question from Chic Brodie, the comment was made that it will be up to the local authority to decide on experience and qualifications. It seems as though there is a bit of a conflict there.
I apologise if what I said was unclear. Section 20 provides that
“An officer appointed ... must have ... such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers”—
it is clear that ministers set the qualifications—and
“such experience as the authority considers appropriate in relation to the carrying out of the ... function”,
so it is a mixture of the two. It is for ministers to set out the qualifications in regulations and for the authority, taking account of that, to also consider the experience that it thinks is appropriate for the person in its local area.
Are we looking for the Scottish ministers to lay down the baseline and the local authorities then to add to that according to what they need locally?
Yes. Ministers will set out the qualifications that people must have in order to carry out the role. It will then be for an authority to make an appointment, based on candidates who meet those criteria, according to the experience and skills that the authority feels are particularly appropriate locally. It may be, for example, that candidates come forward who have particular experience of working in an urban area, and if the authority is in an urban area, it might feel that that is most appropriate. It is for the authority to take that into account in determining the appointment.
When we talked about the role of the chief education officer, you stated that it is to provide advice. They will not have an operational role but will be there to provide advice, so I presume that they will be a centre of expertise. Who will they give advice to?
The idea is that they will give advice to the council. Education legislation has changed quite a bit in recent years and it is quite a complex landscape. Part of our thinking is that it will be useful for the council to be able to draw on advice from a senior officer who understands that landscape and can provide the advice that the council needs in carrying out the council’s education functions.
Will the role be independent or will it report to the director of education?
We will not prescribe exactly where within the local authority hierarchy the individual will sit, but they will be within the local authority.
I presume that you do not envisage that there will be 32 new appointments of senior staff, at considerable expense. Will local authorities be within their rights to appoint an existing officer into the role?
Absolutely. Most authorities already have people carrying out that kind of director of education role and who will have the qualifications and experience that are envisaged in the bill. Where that is not the case, the bill is trying to plug that gap.
What circumstances will trigger the advice that you talked about? Will advice be given if the chief education officer is asked, or will he or she have a statutory right of input?
It will generally be around informing the council around the carrying out of its education functions. It will be part of normal council business to seek advice from those within education, in the same way that advice is sought from those who are involved in social work and other areas of council business.
What value does the bill add?
As I said, the view that has been taken is that it is important to have somebody within the council who has the qualifications and experience to provide that advice on the carrying out of education functions.
Should councils not already have those skills?
In many cases, they do. We have had a number of discussions about this with ADES, which is supportive of the provision. The point that was made to us is that, in recent times, a number of authorities have tended to rationalise the number of senior managers that they have. For example, directors of children’s services are now quite common, as opposed to directors of education. The intention is for advice about education issues to be put on a similar footing to social work, to ensure that the council has a qualified individual within the organisation who is able to provide advice on its education functions.
There has been no formal public consultation on the matter, although I know that some stakeholders have been involved and have expressed an opinion. What are the key issues that were raised in the discussions with stakeholders? Why was there no public consultation?
10:45
There has not been full, formal consultation on the provisions at this point because, like the attainment provisions, which we have already discussed, the provisions came up fairly late in the day. ADES is very supportive of the provisions and other stakeholders have generally been supportive of the introduction of the post. COSLA has advised us that it remains to be convinced of the need for the post.
The post of chief education officer was abolished back in 1996—it was deemed unnecessary. What has changed that makes it necessary now?
It comes down to the two things that I mentioned. In part, it is about the rationalisation that is taking place in local authorities, given the funding constraints under which they are operating, and the need to ensure that somebody in the council has an education background. The second issue is that there is a complicated landscape around educational legislation and related legislation. We therefore feel that it would benefit local authorities to have professional advice available within the council.
I am a little concerned, because we would expect councils already to have such expertise in connection with education. Does the provision imply that some councils are falling short on that and need advice and extra expertise?
Not that we are aware of. The rationale behind the introduction of the post is to formalise the position in the council and to ensure that the advice is available on all occasions, both now and in the future.
I am slightly confused, because I think that you have said slightly contradictory things. You said towards the end of your response to Colin Beattie’s questions that the provision formalises a process of providing expertise that is already there. However, you said in response to a previous question on whether expertise was there that most authorities have it, which suggests that some of them do not. Which one is it?
We are pretty certain that all local authorities have expertise within the council. It is about formalising that and putting it on a statutory footing.
So, they all have it and you are just formalising the process.
Yes.
I have a question along the same lines. I share much of Colin Beattie’s confusion about what we are seeking to achieve. You suggested that many councils have the expertise and, in response to the convener’s question, you suggested that all councils have it but perhaps in a different guise. I am concerned that we appear to be legislating for something where there is not a need. The consoling fact that the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland wants a statutory requirement to have directors of education will surprise nobody. We legislate where we need to, rather than because it makes us feel slightly comforted.
In your responses to Colin Beattie and to the convener, you assured us that all local authorities take the requirement seriously and that, although they may provide the expertise in slightly different ways, they already have access to it. Why are we being asked to put on a statutory footing something that is already being delivered?
I understand what you are saying. I have outlined the rationale behind the provision being in the bill and I have no more to add to that.
I am sure that we will come to the policy question when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning appears before the committee.
Are we not getting a wee bit caught up in structure? I understand what you say about many councils now having a director of children’s services. The whole idea is that the expertise is there in local authorities, but that it is a matter of having someone whose sole responsibility is education and who is an expert in education, because the director of children’s services does not always have a background in education. Is that not the situation that we are looking at when we talk about having a chief education officer?
That is absolutely correct and that is part of the rationale behind ensuring that there is a clearly identified individual in the council who has those responsibilities, be it the director of children’s services or somebody else.
Thank you very much for your attendance. That was our first run at the Education (Scotland) Bill.
I should have said at the start of the meeting that today is the start of the Scottish Qualifications Authority exams for pupils across Scotland. This morning pupils will be sitting the higher drama exam, and some will also be sitting the higher economics exam today. On behalf of the committee, I wish all pupils who are sitting exams today and over the next few weeks the best of luck. I will abuse my position and say good luck to my daughter, who is sitting her higher drama exam this morning. She is in the exam now, so she will not hear this until later. We wish all pupils across Scotland the best of luck at what is always a stressful time for pupils, parents and teachers.
10:49 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance