Official Report 135KB pdf
There is a note from the clerk following our discussions on the pupil motivation inquiry at our away day. Do members have any questions on the approach suggested?
There is some sense in what is being proposed. However, it might help committee members if they saw the report as currently drafted in the standard format. I think that some members have seen it.
It has been circulated to all members, although some might not have received it yet.
I do not have a copy.
Neither do I.
If members do not have a copy, they should speak to the clerks. However, the document was sent out with the intention that members should have it before today's meeting. There may have been problems with the mail in Edinburgh last week.
The clerks should be congratulated on putting the report together so ably. However, if I may say so, the presentation of the last paragraph could be strengthened. The Administration may be on the right track on many policies, but we could highlight—
You are referring to a draft report that you and I have seen, but which will not be circulated until the next meeting.
Ah.
The draft report is quite a wee document, but I think that the idea is to make it much briefer. It is not a particularly weighty tome at the moment, so how brief do you want to make it? Will it consist of bullet points or will it describe some of the arguments that we heard?
It is roughly four pages. It will highlight the main issues that arose out of the inquiry as a stage in the debate on the issue.
Is the idea to pose a set of questions? At the moment, the draft report describes what we heard. It contains some rough conclusions, which we could either firm up or turn into questions for further debate. There is merit in having some of the discussion and argument in neater points; we do not have to quote five different sources each time.
Perhaps we could ask the clerks how they went about producing the revised document.
Following discussions with the deputy convener and the about-to-be-chosen convener, it was agreed that we would produce a slimmer version of the report to highlight the main points that were covered in the inquiry. The slimmer report will be designed to contribute to the on-going debate rather than to make a set of specific recommendations, as the current draft report attempts to do. It was felt that the slimmer report would be appropriate because, in most of the areas that the inquiry considered, there might be insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations. Given that the committee has done a lot of work on the matter already, it was felt in discussion that it would be more helpful to flag up issues of which the professionals are already aware. We can then hold a future event around those issues to take the debate forward.
I suggest that, rather than making a decision in the dark, we go ahead and ask the officials to produce the slimmed-down report for our next meeting. If the committee is content with the slimmer version, we can go ahead with it; if the committee decides that it wants a more traditional report, we can bring back the current draft.
Will we have both reports then?
Members will have seen both versions, so they will know which one they feel more comfortable with. I suggest that as a way forward.
So we will have both reports.
The slimmer report will be on the table for discussion next week. However, as members will have seen the traditional-style draft report, if they are not happy with the slimmed-down version, we will be able to ask for the more traditional-style report to be brought back. That is probably the best way forward. Are members content with that?
Subject to any decisions that we make next week on the draft report, are members content with the proposals about the format of the stakeholder event that is suggested in paragraph 4 of the clerk's paper? Essentially, the suggestion is that we should invite to the event those who have contributed to the debate so far. They will be divided into small workgroups, each of which will be led by a member of the committee.
Will the event involve, say, half an hour in a plenary session, an hour in a workshop and then a report back to the plenary session for, say, three quarters of an hour? Is that the idea?
Yes. Obviously, we have not gone into that much detail, but the idea is that there will be a plenary session and some workgroup sessions, which will be led by members of the committee.
Will we invite the group of teaching professionals with whom we had a round-table discussion? I found that very helpful and informative. I would quite like to hear the feedback that they might give us.
Yes. Part of the proposal in paragraph 4 of the clerk's paper is that we should invite those who participated in the inquiry. Obviously, the committee will be given further details on the proposed structure of the event. At the moment, we simply need agreement on the principle, as that will allow the clerks to go ahead with the arrangements and to bring back that further information.
I think that the hope is that we should not tell stakeholders what they already know but try to take the debate further forward.
Are members content with the proposals as outlined?
In that case, I bring this meeting, my first as convener, to a close. Thank you very much for your forbearance. I will try to get better.
Meeting closed at 14:42.
Previous
School Transport