Official Report 324KB pdf
We will move on quickly to the last two items, the first of which is the matter of additional witnesses. Members will recall that this item was left until the period for submissions was over. We have a paper from the clerks that gives us suggestions for additional witnesses. Do members have thoughts on the programme as it stands?
I had not picked up on the point that I want to make until today, partly because I did not get the papers until Monday night, due to a postal delay or for some other reason. I notice that the witnesses are grouped to home in on particular areas of questioning. We did not do that today; we went all round the houses in much the same way as we have done with previous witnesses. Should we not be trying to structure our questioning to the expertise of the witnesses who are in front of us?
That is a valid point. We need to ensure that we have killed off points. That suggestion fits with one that Rhona Brankin made in a private conversation before the meeting about how we assess the evidence and begin to home in on things. The clerks are doing a little bit of work to try to help in that connection. It is particularly important that we have all the issues tied up at the point that we take evidence from the minister.
I would like to hear from a witness who represents clinical psychologists. In the evidence that we have received, we have heard that clinical psychologists are very much involved in the assessment and identification of young people, especially those who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties or autistic spectrum disorder. It would be useful to take evidence from a representative of clinical psychologists.
Do you mean as opposed to educational psychologists?
We have heard from educational psychologists although, as an extra, I would be interested to hear further from the organisation that is mentioned in the paper.
I am not sure that I follow your thinking. I bow to your professional expertise, but would clinical psychologists have things to say to us about the bill that educational psychologists do not have to say?
Yes—they have expertise in the identification of children who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties or autistic spectrum disorder. They also have expertise in multi-agency working because they work alongside professionals in other agencies and schools.
Do educational psychologists not have the front role in assessment?
Of course, but clinical psychologists also have expertise in the area. We have heard in evidence that there is a lack of information about the assessment of young people who have autistic spectrum disorder. Clinical psychologists are crucial to that process.
An issue to do with assessment is coming through fairly strongly. We have also touched on the issue of shortages, which is perhaps more for the minister than for professionals.
I am interested in teasing out more information about the number of pupils who have emotional and behavioural difficulties. Perhaps we should try to take evidence from an academic who works in the field and who has done research about the number of youngsters involved. The person should be familiar with examples of good practice. That might allow us to begin to quantify the matter. Some local authorities have already taken an inclusive approach to meeting pupils' needs that encompasses children with emotional and behavioural difficulties or youngsters who have English as a second language. It would be useful to get an idea of the numbers involved, especially the number of children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties.
That reminds me of the observations that the three professors from whom we heard made about the pre-legislative period. Fiona Hyslop was keen to have them back, but I am not sure how readily we can fit that into the programme.
I suggest that we take evidence from Paul Hamill or someone from his faculty at the University of Strathclyde. A team there is carrying out research in local authorities on the issue that Rhona Brankin raised. It would be appropriate to take evidence from a member of that team, because it has done a lot of research in the area.
Many people are doing research on the issue. We should try to find out who has done the most relevant research.
Do members have any other observations on witnesses?
We would benefit from a bit more focus on the identifying and assessment process. That process is a key issue, because many disputes arise from it and the problem of the allocation and distribution of resources flows from it. To my mind, that process will be the nub of the system that the bill will introduce. If the new system is seen to be transparent on that process, we can move things on.
Which witnesses do you think we should hear from?
I simply throw in the comment that that issue would benefit from more focus and scrutiny. We would have to think about which witnesses to pull in. It has been suggested today that the new legislation will be little different from the existing legislation on the issue of identification and assessment. Can we get an independent view on that matter?
The subject is so important that I hope that we have time to do justice to it and to hear the witnesses rather than being forced into a strict timetable laid down by the Executive. We have a four-year session and it will not make a tremendous difference overall if the bill is enacted a month later, but it will make a great deal of difference to those at the sharp end if we go the extra mile to make sure that all those who could give relevant evidence have that opportunity.
I do not think that the Executive is forcing us into a straitjacket, but we are under the Parliamentary Bureau's instructions on the timing of the stage 1 report. We can ask for more time if we need it.
We can go back to the bureau. I remember that, when I was a member of it, there were occasions when conveners asked for a month extra if they felt that they needed more time to do justice to a report.
The issue is what other witnesses we want, whether we can fit them in and whether we do not need to see the ones who have been suggested because we have already dealt with the issues. We have to keep an overall view of the situation. I take Adam Ingram's point about assessment, but I do not know how to reflect that issue through oral evidence from witnesses, unless we ask the ministers about it when we take evidence from them at the end of stage 1.
In which case, where is our scope for adding people? We have two full panels of witnesses on 3 December and it takes longer to hear from witnesses when the panels are larger. I do not think that we can add any witnesses to that meeting, especially as it, too, will be tight for time.
It is also tight for giving notice.
So are members happy that there are no amendments to the panels for 3 December? Are people happy with the scope of the organisations that we will hear from?
We have therefore approved the suggested witnesses for 3 December.
Would that be an addition to the evidence that we have already heard from representatives from the national health service?
I believe that it would. Rosemary Byrne's suggestion is to hear from people at the professional end, such as those who provide the services.
I am certainly not against the suggestion; we could squeeze them in, or perhaps we could ask them to write to us.
The alternative is that we ask for written evidence on the issue. I am inclined to go in that direction.
If we receive a written submission and then feel that we want to pursue the issue, we could consider the matter further.
Would you like to talk to the clerk about that? Given that you raised the issue and have expertise on it, you can clarify what we are looking for.
Yes.
That brings us back to the ESBD people. Again, the timing is tight.
If there is a third panel, could the three professors be slotted in?
I do not think that we necessarily want to have the three professors back, but the idea of homing in on the academic stuff in certain areas is important. That might or might not consist of hearing from one of the people from whom we have already taken evidence. I think that the issue that is important to the committee is the point about numbers.
It is. The issue is about how need is quantified.
I am not sure whether I have got a feel for how the assessment happens in practice. It is clear that there is no disagreement on the simplification of the procedure and the fact that there will not be psychologists for everybody. The difficulty is how we ensure that whoever leads in dealing with the provision knows whom to ask, whom to involve and so on.
That is a problematic area.
Who would give us information about that? The issue is a tricky one. We might need to get more from the professionals. I do not know whether teachers will be able to give us that information in relation to special needs. I do not think that we have had any witnesses specifically on special needs teaching.
It would be very useful to hear from, for example, a principal teacher who is running a special educational needs department or someone who co-ordinates special educational needs in a mainstream school. We should speak to someone who is in charge and who has an overview of everything that is going on. That might be a depute head teacher or an assistant head teacher.
We have visited schools with special needs provision. I would like to avoid the better-practice end of the spectrum and examine mainstream provision. I would like to investigate what happens in a typical school, where resource and staffing implications are perhaps a bit more difficult.
A learning support co-ordinator in a mainstream school would be most helpful.
A typical middle-sized or large secondary school will have a head of special needs education.
Yes. Those people have a big overview.
Have they? I do not know. Would somebody like that be appropriate?
Yes.
Rhona Brankin is looking quizzical.
I do not think that it will take us any further to receive evidence from somewhere where good practice is not involved. I am not sure what you mean by that.
The issue is not so much about good practice. We have visited some well-resourced schools where provision has moved on and there is a definite orientation towards having more children with special or additional support needs than in the average school. I am thinking more of those more average schools, if you like, where there is special needs support, perhaps involving teachers and a head of department, but without the better resourcing that is perhaps to be found elsewhere. We should investigate the practical issues. We can find out more about guidance and assessment.
Are you referring to a school that currently does not have an integrated support team approach? Do you want to ask people from such schools about the impact of moving to the new system?
The issue is not so much the impact as how the assessment procedure works and the resources that will be given across the board. We want to get a slightly better feel for that.
Principal teachers would not necessarily have a handle on the detailed resourcing issues. We have had evidence from head teachers and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
A learning support co-ordinator would be able to give a really good overview, because they co-ordinate support for learning in a school. In many schools, that will also include support for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Learning support co-ordinators would give the committee a good overview.
That is the direction that I am heading in.
The learning support co-ordinator might be a depute head; in some cases, he or she is the head teacher or an assistant head teacher.
Yes. He or she will be a senior manager.
Can we move in that direction and add an academic to our witnesses on 10 December? That might mean that there is a rather disparate panel, unless we organise the evidence session in a slightly different way. If the clerk thinks that he can manage to set things up for us in that time scale, we would like to have that arrangement. Does Rhona Brankin have particular ideas on that?
I will think about it.
Yes. You can give Martin Verity your thoughts on the matter.