Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 10 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 10, 2001

Official Report 143KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

We have two Scottish statutory instruments before us this morning. The first is the Education (Provision of Information as to Schools) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/406), which is subject to negative procedure. I invite the committee's comments on it. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made some recommendations on its drafting and the Executive has agreed to redraft it in the light of those recommendations.

As no one has any comments to make on that instrument, we will proceed to the second instrument—the Education (School and Placing Information) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/407)—which is also subject to negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has commented on the instrument and the Executive has agreed to redraft it. I am aware, however, that committee members want to comment on the instrument as well.

This SSI presents the committee with two problems. The problem relating to the drafting is less significant, although the note from the Subordinate Legislation Committee is pretty damning about it—I hope that those responsible for the drafting will take heed of that.

The more substantial problem relates to the information that the SSI seeks to place into school handbooks. Those of us on this committee who went through the Scottish Qualifications Authority inquiry are concerned about the difficulty that pupils, parents and teachers—let alone employers—have had in understanding the examination results as presented after the candidate has been through a diet of exams. We made a number of recommendations on the simplification of the system, including the introduction of a new type of certificate, which the minister has taken on board for consideration.

This SSI seems to have been drafted before our report was produced. It seeks to place into school handbooks details of pass rates and the number of certificates achieved, using SQA categories such as "Advanced Higher at A-C", "Higher at A-C", "Intermediate 1", "Intermediate 2" and "Access 3 Cluster (Foundation)". Many of us do not know what those categories mean, even though we have been through the SQA inquiry. I am sure that Ian Jenkins knows what they mean, but he has professional knowledge. I suspect that virtually no parent would understand the categories. Furthermore, what page 2 of the SSI proposes to present is absolutely mind boggling.

I understand that the SSI is subject to negative procedure and will be in force unless the Parliament votes against it and I recognise that the situation is made difficult by the fact that school handbooks are being prepared and will be prepared during the next few months. However, I ask the committee whether it would be possible to say to the minister and his department that we believe that the SSI reflects past thinking about results and does not take into account some of the problems that arose from the SQA's presentation of information. A new SSI should be drafted with urgency to simplify the presentation of information, so that parents, who are the main beneficiaries of school handbooks, can understand what the qualifications mean. Such a change should reflect the impending changes in certification and help parents to understand what the qualifications are. My suggestion would carry more weight if the committee were unanimous in its support.

I support what Michael Russell is saying. There is clear evidence that people did not understand the issues. Printing the information that the SSI suggests would only add to the confusion. As the instrument seems to have been drafted before our report was published, it would be worth asking whether it can be rewritten.

I do not know the detail of the SQA inquiry, so I come to this relatively fresh. Having professional experience in awards and certification, I do not quite see what the problem is. Are we saying that the qualifications that are listed in the right-hand column on the first page of the instrument would be difficult to understand if given as information in a school handbook? I would argue that they would not be, given the way in which I have dealt with school handbooks. However, there is an issue to do with the way in which results were listed last year. People had difficulties about the inclusion of various awards on the same piece of paper.

The evidence that we took, which was substantive and is included in our report, was that parents, pupils and employers, among others, did not yet understand such categories as, "Intermediate 2 at A-C" and "Access 3 Cluster (Foundation)". It was also hard for them to understand "Advanced Higher", which is new. The committee was unanimous in the belief that there needed to be a much clearer way of expressing the information and of getting through to people exactly what the qualifications meant.

The problem with the SSI, which is made obvious by the explanatory note, is that it was produced before our report was published. In those circumstances, I think that the minister would be receptive to the idea of redrafting the instrument to ensure that the information in the school handbooks is easier to understand.

Having been greatly involved in the development of handbooks and having listened to parents' views, I accept the second part of the statement about the need for the information to be easy to understand. The smaller the amount of detail, the better. The problem is that a number of organisations will not be aware of some of the new terms. I am sure that that would have been the case when standard grades were introduced in the 1980s. However, given the evidence that the committee has heard, I am willing to accept Michael Russell's point. I suggest that we say that the instrument should be refined rather than added to.

I suggest that we write to the Executive with the comments that have been made and ask for a response as soon as possible, preferably within the next couple of weeks.

I would like some clarification. I understand what Michael Russell says and I agree that it would be absurd for the committee to recommend greater clarity in the certification and then to approve something that would not assist that. However, would I be right in saying that any changes to be made by the SQA in agreement with the education department would not need to be made through an SSI? That would mean that any reporting in subsequent handbooks would not have to come before this committee. Could not changes be made no matter what we decide today?

It is possible.

That could be one of the questions that you ask the Executive.

I would expect the Executive to go further—

Mike, Ian Jenkins is next.

Convener, you have started as you mean to continue.

Exactly.

I am glad to see it.

The intention is to make the information clear to parents. No one wants to mystify them. As Michael Russell says, the question is whether the information makes sense. While the instrument is in force, there is no harm done, but we should be thinking about amending it. I do not know whether we should let it go just now and indicate in a letter that there is a problem with it and that transparency is important. We do not want to do anything to prevent schools from publishing such information. It should be published, but it is not clear at the moment.

I am not suggesting that we oppose the instrument in the chamber, but I think that it would be useful to note in the chamber that, in letting the SSI through, we have made a constructive suggestion. Our suggestion is not only to do with a worry that the information suggested for inclusion in the handbook will not be current because of changes in certification; it relates to the fact that parents and others did not understand what the categories meant, which was a major problem. We should make it clear that, if instructions are being given about what should be in a school handbook, there should be an attempt to help parents to understand the information. The bald table that is suggested will not help parents to understand the information.

The trouble with that is the danger of spinning. Facts need to be presented in one place, with interpretation of those facts in another place.

I am always resistant to the idea of spinning, as is my colleague Mr McAveety.

Absolutely.

Cathy, how will we cope with this pair?

It is going to be fun.

I suggest that we write to the Executive and ask it to respond as soon as possible so that we get a chance to consider its view. I also suggest that we do not invoke negative procedure on the SSI but that, if we want to make comments on the instrument in the chamber, we do so. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.