The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on relationships and behaviour in schools. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:55
Today’s update on relationships and behaviour in schools follows the progress made on the national action plan that was published last August by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I can inform members that further progress, most notably on consequences, will be published before the summer recess.
As cabinet secretary, I spend much of my time engaging with teachers and other school staff across the country. Over the past six months, I have hosted a series of regional events, with all of Scotland’s secondary school headteachers being invited to attend, and we are now halfway through the events for all primary school headteachers. I again pay tribute to teachers in Scotland’s schools, from Dumfries to Inverness and Aberdeen, who are helping to make a difference every day. Those events have been pivotal in allowing us to hear about the post-Covid challenges that our schools face and in creating the necessary conditions to have frank and pragmatic conversations about the solutions with those who are at the chalkface.
I stress the need to look beyond party politics and to work across the Parliament to collectively discuss solutions. There is a role for each of us in working together, with the interests of our young people in mind. That is why, in advance of the publication of the behaviour action plan, I engaged with Opposition members to hear their ideas for solutions. A further example of that approach was the First Minister’s youth justice summit, at which members from across the Parliament heard directly from young people. A further discussion will take place shortly, and I look forward to continuing that conversation with all parties.
We all know that the reasons underpinning trends in behaviour are complex. Staff who responded to the behaviour in Scottish schools research highlighted the impact of wider societal factors—including poverty, deprivation and the cost of living crisis—as the root cause of some disruptive behaviour. Given that a core mission of the Government is getting it right for every child, we have a commitment to support all young people to help them to reach their potential.
I turn to my update on the relationships and behaviour in schools action plan. Importantly, the plan is jointly owned with COSLA to reflect the sharing of legal responsibilities between the Government and our councils, which carry the statutory responsibility for running Scotland’s schools. The plan was developed in collaboration with the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools, which means that it was informed by our main teaching unions, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Education Scotland, the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists, parent representatives and wider stakeholders.
The plan contains 20 overarching actions under eight themes and is to be delivered by March 2027, and the first progress report was published at the end of March. Between November 2023 and March 2025, good progress was made against all 20 actions that are set out in the plan. I will take a few moments to highlight some of that progress.
We have prioritised responding to emerging areas of concern. That is why new guidance has been published on preventing and responding to gender-based violence and on mobile phones. We have also updated “Respect for All”, our national anti-bullying guidance, to include strong messages about our expectation that all instances of bullying should be recorded.
Our national education agencies have a crucial role here. In November 2023, I announced support, spearheaded by our interim chief inspector of schools, to ensure that inspections by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education support improvements in behaviour in our schools. As part of inspections, every school in Scotland now receives enhanced feedback on relationships and behaviour. Education Scotland has been supporting local authorities and schools with bespoke professional learning, tailored to the needs of their staff, on topics such as expectations, consequences and de-escalation.
Practical resources to support staff on specific topics have also developed. That work includes updating the “Keeping Your Cool in School” programme, which uses discussion and reflection to equip primary-aged children to recognise and manage strong emotions. As part of the violence prevention framework, partners in the third sector have launched the “Quit Fighting for Likes” campaign, which includes a suite of resources for teachers to engage young people in conversations that are aimed at preventing the filming and sharing of violent incidents on social media. That is just a snapshot of some of the action that is detailed more fully in the progress report, with which I am sure members have engaged.
Today, I will focus on our next steps in the action plan, with particular reference to two areas that are of specific concern to members: the increase in gender-based violence and responding to the most challenging behaviour in our schools.
Like many members, I was deeply concerned by the recent NASUWT and Educational Institute of Scotland findings on the experiences of female teachers and staff, which echo those of our own BISS research. As a female politician, I have to say that the findings are, sadly, also reflective of some of the experiences that are encountered by women in politics in 2025. That is because our classrooms can hold up a mirror to who we are as a society. Therefore, we should not divorce wider societal shifts from behaviour in Scotland’s schools.
Gender-based violence should not be tolerated in our society. Important conversations are needed about how to address the attitudes that are influencing such violence, and I welcomed my most recent meeting with the NASUWT to that end on Friday, when I attended its conference.
I have already highlighted the good work that is being done on the gender-based violence framework, which was launched last year. We are also continuing our investment in the mentors in violence prevention and Equally Safe at School programmes, which are aimed at addressing violence against women and girls.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of online content. In January, I was fortunate to attend the launch of the new digital discourse initiative. The free resource provides practical strategies and curriculum tools to support school staff to challenge online hate and disinformation. I heard at first hand from staff and pupils at Cathkin high school about how helpful that resource has been in aiding the understanding of terminology and providing practical tools to address those issues in schools. As part of the programme for government, we have committed to further supporting that initiative.
Beyond gender-based violence, we know that the rise of extremism and far-right ideology across wider society is having a detrimental impact on our young people. That concern was shared by the teaching trade unions when I met them all yesterday as part of our professional association forum. As I confirmed at last Friday’s NASUWT conference, I have committed to engaging further on that topic, building on the gathering that the First Minister held two weeks ago, to understand the role of our education system in tackling the harms of the far right. Today, I extend an invitation to all MSPs to be part of that alliance and to work collectively with the Government to tackle the threat of the far right and, in particular, the threat that extremism brings to women in society.
I turn to the steps that we are taking to respond to the most serious behaviour in our schools. This year, as part of our broader investment in violence prevention, we are investing £2 million to address youth violence and the carrying of weapons in and around our schools. That brings our total investment to more than £6 million since 2023. Such investment supports Medics Against Violence to engage with young people in schools and youth clubs to address the consequences in our schools of knife carrying and knife injuries. It also supports YouthLink Scotland to deliver the no knives, better lives programme, to develop resources and to deliver training sessions to hundreds of practitioners and young people.
I recognise the BISSR findings, which were reinforced by our relationships and behaviour summits, that staff can feel disempowered by using consequences. However, I am absolutely clear that consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment. As I mentioned, we will publish new guidance on consequences before the summer recess, and I will update the Parliament at that point.
I also recognise the concerns that have been raised about the potential underreporting of incidents and about variation in practice among local authorities. We have already refreshed guidance on the recording of bullying incidents and, during phase 2 of the plan, we will undertake a broader review of processes for recording incidents, including violent incidents, to identify potential means of streamlining processes and improving consistency.
Our schools and school workforce remain central to all that. In recognition of their importance, we are investing an additional £29 million in this year’s budget to support provision of the additional support needs workforce in our schools. That resource will be used to support the recruitment, retention and training of the whole of the inclusion workforce.
I am aware of how much interest there is in this topic across the chamber. That is why, ahead of the publication of the national action plan, I engaged with all parties and their suggestions for improvements. I hope that party spokespeople can see some of those suggestions reflected in the national action plan and in our progress to date. In a similar spirit, as we enter phase 2 of the plan, I am keen to engage on the development of further solutions so that, collectively, we can consider how they might be integrated in the plan.
I have set out the progress that has been made during the first nine months of the action plan and my commitment to further action. I hope that members across the chamber can share that commitment as we move to the next phase of the action plan. We all share the ambition to make our schools safe and consistent learning environments and, in so doing, support Scotland’s young people and teachers.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in her statement. There will be around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement.
At a time when teaching unions are reporting record levels of violence in our classrooms and teachers are requesting self-defence training, I continue to have deep concerns that the plan and what has been outlined today will not end violence in our classrooms and schools.
Teachers and parents with whom I have spoken said that they had not even heard of the relationship and behaviour in schools action plan. Ministers have a long way to go to demonstrate and give confidence to teachers and our school communities that the plan will deliver the safe school environments that we all want to see. Teachers want to know that they will be supported and that any decisions on disruptive and violent pupils, whom they cannot manage in the classroom, will be respected, including by council management.
The cabinet secretary says that consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment—I agree. One of the action plan outcomes was that school staff should
“feel confident to report, record, monitor, assess and respond to individual incidents and patterns of behaviour”.
Will the new guidance on consequences include a presumption that, if a pupil has been violent towards a member of staff—including towards classroom assistants, which I believe is not being recorded—they will be kept out of the classroom until their behaviour changes?
Miles Briggs raises a number of important points. I will try to summarise them all—forgive me if I forget any of them. I am more than happy to meet him to talk about the issues at length.
I had substantive discussions with the teaching unions yesterday, in advance of the committee session that Miles Briggs and I attended last night. We talked for two hours about some of the broader issues related to the challenges in our classrooms. The NASUWT’s research on the matter, in addition to that of the EIS, has been seminal to the national action plan.
I hear the challenge from Mr Briggs about where the action plan is now. I hope that he understands the tone that I am taking and that I am continuing to engage with Opposition parties on the plan. I recognise that we have got to get it right. I engaged substantively with Liam Kerr, Mr Briggs’s predecessor as his party’s spokesperson on education—he was at the table, engaging with me and other parties on the draft action plan.
Part of my response today set out that, as we approach phase 2, there will be further information coming in relation to consequences. I am more than happy to engage with Mr Briggs on that. He is correct to say that teachers must be supported in our schools—he will know that I take the issue very seriously, having come from the classroom myself. He spoke about the role of council or school management—he will also know some of my frustrations, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, in relation to the different responsibilities of the Government and of local authorities in that space, which are stipulated in law. We share legal responsibilities, which is exactly why the national action plan ties COSLA to the work.
Mr Briggs also raised an issue about parents’ lack of understanding or knowledge of the plan. I accept that. The point was also raised by Mike Corbett of the NASUWT. I discussed the point extensively with Councillor Tony Buchanan, the COSLA spokesperson for children and young people, and on the back of that, he and I wrote to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland about helping to support that confidence raising.
We need to use the national action plan to inform behaviour policy in our schools. I will continue my work on that, but I would welcome the member’s support. In every school that I go into, I am constantly surprised and amazed by some of the approaches that are being used. We need to ensure that the action plan is giving support where it is needed. The budget also provides extra funding for additional support for learning, which was a key ask from the teaching trade unions.
The member asked a final question about SAGRABIS and violent behaviour. I am happy to take that question away, because the guidance on consequences will not be published until next week. Although I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that work, my firm expectation is that it will be in agreement with the member’s point.
The cabinet secretary said that staff need to feel supported to manage behaviour. I agree, but that support must be systemic, not sticking plasters.
Staff are exhausted, stressed and underresourced, and they are being asked to deliver a national behaviour strategy while ASN provision is stretched and wider support services have vanished. In too many cases, dealing with violence in schools has become expected and is simply seen as being part of the job.
Last year, Parliament agreed to a motion in my name that called for a national workforce plan to be produced. That motion was agreed to, but the Government has not yet delivered. The action plan is too little, too late. The cabinet secretary has talked about working across parties, but the motion that the Parliament agreed to had cross-party support. Why has a workforce plan not been published? How can phase 2 of the strategy work when the workforce that it relies on still lacks the support that it needs?
I thank the member for her interest in the matter. I agree that a systemic approach is needed, rather than sticking plasters, but I am not sure that I agree with the member’s point that teachers are being asked to deliver a strategy. We are talking about a plan to support our classroom teachers, our middle leaders and our leaders in schools. I have not come up with that plan on my own; it is a plan that is jointly owned by COSLA and the teaching trade unions. They have fed into the work and have told Government and local authorities exactly what support their members need. I think that that gives the plan a strength that will mean that it should help to support the profession.
The member mentioned a motion on workforce planning that was voted for some time ago. I reassure her that work on that is being taken forward. However, as the member will know—I discussed this with her yesterday evening, which does not feel that long ago—some of the issues that I have experienced in that regard relate to the legal responsibilities that rest with local government as an employer, so we need to work with COSLA on that. That work is being progressed as part of the education assurance board, which was a key component of the budget agreement with COSLA, as part of which extra funding was provided for teacher numbers and for ASN provision. That is so important.
I am not sure what point the member is making to me, but I am more than happy to catch her after question time to discuss the matter in further detail.
Around 13 colleagues wish to ask questions, and they have around 14 minutes in which to ask them, so I would welcome brevity in the questions and the responses.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement. Pupils are well aware that there are few, if any, tangible consequences to bad behaviour. It is obvious that allowing persistently disruptive pupils to remain in classrooms come what may, it would seem, is not working for staff and well-behaved pupils, who are undermined by constant disruption, which makes learning difficult and sometimes impossible.
It is time to remove persistently disruptive pupils from classrooms to where their behaviour can be closely monitored, and for them to be given an opportunity to return, should their behaviour improve. Will the consequential improvements that the cabinet secretary is looking to deliver be in place for the autumn term?
That is not the brevity of question that we are looking for.
I sincerely hope that those improvements will be in place for the autumn term. Mr Gibson’s point was about consequences and, in response to Mr Briggs, I mentioned the further work on consequences, which will be published before the summer recess. It is worth while recounting the fact that teachers in Scotland can already take a range of actions in responding to disruptive behaviour, and that, at the furthest extreme, exclusion remains an option that is open to them.
As I set out in my statement, we will publish the new guidance on consequences before the summer. I am clear that consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment, and I will provide more information on our approach in that respect when we publish the guidance in June.
I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has come to the conclusion—two and a half years after we first mentioned the issue—that consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment.
We have recently heard about examples of headteachers who have taken decisions to limit mobile phone use in classrooms, but I note that the statement did not fully address the connection between mobile phone use and behaviour. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the use of such devices to access unchecked content is contributing to aggressive behaviour among some pupils in our schools, and that that issue needs to be highlighted?
I very much agree with the sentiment of the member’s question, although I am not sure that I have taken two and a half years to come to the conclusion that consequences are required in our schools. As someone who taught in the classroom, I know that consequences and rules are very important in delivering education, especially when trying to do so to a large group of unruly young people.
On the member’s point about the connection between mobile phone use and behaviour, it is absolutely true that those things are linked. I agree with her on that. I made one reference to the updated mobile phone guidance in my statement, but I did not explicitly refer to the connection with behaviour. I reassure the member that I absolutely accept that those things are linked.
Last week, I noted that a couple of schools in Edinburgh are now moving forward with full bans. That follows a policy approach that I think has been adopted by Perth and Kinross Council. Schools are now looking at the national approach, which empowers headteachers to take the decision to ban mobile phones, and decisions are being rolled out across the country. That is the approach that works best in Scotland. Because there are shared legal responsibilities, as cabinet secretary, I cannot enforce a national ban, but I can set out very clear national guidance that empowers headteachers to choose to ban mobile phones if they see fit. I think that it is welcome news that we are starting to see real progress to that end.
Can the cabinet secretary outline how the programme for government that the First Minister announced this week will support children and young people with ASN as they navigate an ever-changing school environment?
I am clear that all children and young people are entitled to the support that they need to reach their full potential. We have committed £26 million of funding each year—£15 million for support assistance, plus £11 million to our grant-aided schools and in other grants—to support that aim.
The programme for government commits an additional £29 million to support the recruitment, retention and training of our additional support needs workforce via local and national programmes.
Further, we will hold a data summit with all local authorities to support improved consistency of identification, support and reporting of children’s needs at local level. We know that inconsistent data gathering has caused a challenge to that historically, so it is important that there is national consistency in data gathering and in how the Government monitors and supports local authorities in relation to additional support for learning.
Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment that, after 18 years, we can still only talk about the ambition for our schools to be safe and consistent, rather than having safe and consistent schools?
Although the member is perhaps a bit older than I am, I am sure that, when he was at school some time in the past, there were incidents at schools—there certainly were when I was at school. I am not sure that we are necessarily living in a different age 18 years after my party came to power, although I accept that that is the member’s point.
There are challenges in our classrooms, some of which predate Covid, but some of which have undoubtedly been compounded by Covid. We have also seen the onset of austerity in our classrooms, and that is harming behaviour. I hear that in evidence from the third sector as well as from our teaching trade unions. I have been making a point at our headteacher regional events about the way in which the delivery of education has changed in recent years—something that the member, as a former teacher, will know. For example, we now have food banks and clothing banks in our schools. The relationship of that support and our schools has changed.
I am mindful of that challenge, and I am thinking about the support that we give our schools and how it might have to be adapted in the future. More broadly, of course it is an ambition that our schools are safe and consistent learning environments. I am not sure that I would accept that they have changed in that regard in the past 18 years.
I am sure that many members will join me in welcoming key announcements on education from this week’s programme for government. Can the cabinet secretary outline what the programme for government will do to address behaviour and improve standards in schools specifically?
The programme for government makes a number of additional contributions to funding to enhance, for example, the number of teachers in our schools. Having a full staffing complement is hugely important, but the extra funding that I spoke of in response to a previous question on additional support for learning is specifically tailored to give that additionality in terms of trained specialist staff. We know that there are challenges in that regard; for example, although historically we have seen our pupil support population increasing, there are fewer additional support for learning teachers. The extra funding from the Government is designed to allow local authorities to have the power to choose to invest in specialist provision to help support their workforce.
I am glad that the statement had a focus on gender-based violence. It is essential that we talk with boys and young men about the importance of consent in relationships. The new version of the sex and relationship education guidance for teachers, which the cabinet secretary and I were involved in drafting, does that, but its publication has been delayed again. Will that be published in time for schools returning in August?
It is my expectation that there will be an update. I am more than happy to write to the member or to meet him to talk about that point. I recognise some of the challenge in the matter and his specific interest in it.
I understand that violence in schools will not stop immediately, but for teachers and staff the situation is getting worse, not better. It is frustrating that the timetable for the plan has already slipped and that the guidance on consequences will not be published for months yet. Can the cabinet secretary assure teachers and staff that there will be no further slippage?
I am not necessarily sure that there has been slippage. The work on consequences was a direct ask from SAGRABIS, which includes COSLA, our teaching trade unions and our other partners.
We have to agree the guidance collectively, but it will be published in the coming weeks, before the end of term. I hope that that gives the member some comfort. I have been very clear that there is a need for the updated guidance to be published before the end of term so that, when schools return in August, they can use it at their in-service training days to help to inform better practice in our schools.
My question follows on from my colleague Ross Greer’s question. Abuse, violence and harassment of any kind, but particularly gender-based violence, should not be tolerated in our society, and certainly not in our education environments. Will the cabinet secretary outline the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to address those issues, particularly in schools, in support of the equally safe strategy?
The Scottish Government absolutely agrees that gender-based violence of any kind is unacceptable anywhere in our society, including in our education settings. That is why we are implementing our equally safe strategy to prevent and eradicate such violence and harassment.
Our equally safe delivery plan contains commitments from ADES to ensure that all secondary schools sign up to the equally safe at school work, encourage the development of peer learning and activity around gender-based violence in schools, and ensure that all staff complete trauma awareness training. As of January this year, 133 schools have signed up to the equally safe at school programme, which involves a whole-school approach to tackling gender inequality and gender-based violence.
We have also published the national framework to help schools tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence, which, as I mentioned in my statement, is a wider societal challenge at this time.
Challenging behaviour and relationships can be difficult for all teachers and staff, but particularly for supply teachers, who do not necessarily have the opportunity to build up a rapport with their students. We know that the cabinet secretary met Scottish Teachers for Permanence back in November. I understand that, at that meeting, she committed to meeting it again and arranging a meeting with COSLA, but it tells me that, despite requests, it has not had an update on that. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet it urgently to discuss the issue and its recent survey?
Mr Ross’s point in relation to supply is pertinent. We have real challenges at the current time in relation to that issue of permanence. If we look across the country, about 80 per cent of all teaching jobs are permanent. That has stayed pretty static since 2014. However, at the local authority level, there are undoubtedly challenges.
I have engaged with the group that the member alluded to. I am happy to engage with all partners on the issue. Substantively, though, I engage with our teaching trade unions. I engaged with them yesterday for two hours on a range of different issues, and we had a significant contribution from them on this issue and the way in which the uncertainty affects their members. I am very alive to that. We have to work with local authorities on the issue, recognising their responsibilities in law, and I will continue to engage with the teaching trade unions to that end.
I understand that the EIS noted in February that the number of violent incidents in schools has increased steadily since the onset of UK Government-imposed austerity. That is a further example of the harm that UK Government policies cause in Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the sustained impact of austerity on our young people?
Ms Dunbar raises some important points. We know that UK Government welfare cuts have caused wide-ranging damage to the lives and outcomes of children and young people across the UK, including in Scotland. [Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from members on the benches to my left, but the End Child Poverty coalition estimates that the two-child cap alone pulled 30,000 children into poverty in the UK between Labour being elected in June last year and 5 April this year, while Department for Work and Pensions figures show that proposed welfare cuts for disabled people will drive 50,000 more children into poverty.
We have committed around £1.4 billion to mitigate the impact of 15 years of UK Government policies such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. Because the UK Government has failed to act, we have also committed to developing the systems that are needed to effectively scrap the impact of the two-child cap by April 2026.
Three additional members wish to ask questions. I will get them all in, but their questions will need to be brief, as will the responses.
When does the cabinet secretary expect the prevalence of violence in our schools to be reduced? Why has the number of exclusions fallen on this Government’s watch while levels of violence have increased?
On the point that Neil Bibby raises about exclusions, we know that there is some reticence from the profession in relation to reporting. I addressed that point in the chamber in November 2023, when I responded to the behaviour in Scottish schools research. At that time, I was very clear in calling on the profession for clearer reporting, but, to that end, we need to give the profession confidence that it will have support. Updated guidance in relation to reporting will be published before the end of term as part of the updated work on consequences in order to help to give that support to the profession. Exclusion exists as a consequence and we need staff to feel empowered, as and when appropriate, to understand that it exists as an option for them to use.
What is the cabinet secretary’s response to calls for a national smartphone ban across all school estates, a single national behaviour standard, clear lawful guidance based on biological sex and safeguarding policies that are no longer dictated by activist-driven disinformation?
A number of points were raised there, and I am conscious of time. On the point about mobile phones, as I referred to in my response to Roz McCall, as cabinet secretary, I do not have the legal power to enforce a national ban on mobile phones. What I can do is set out very clear national guidance—which is what we have done—that tells headteachers that we trust them to enforce bans in their school, as and when they see appropriate. It is good to see that that is already starting to have an impact, including in schools in Edinburgh.
I do not understand how the cabinet secretary can say that we are making good progress in this area at all. The delayed guidance on consequences was supposed to be issued during phase 1. We still do not have a definition of what violence or misbehaviour actually is. The wellbeing group that was supposed to meet about staff welfare has not even met yet. We still do not have any idea about mandatory reporting. There is no progress in those vital areas, which should have been a priority. Why is the cabinet secretary not frustrated with her own lack of progress?
I am not sure that I am going to accept Stephen Kerr’s characterisation of the progress that has been made, because there has been progress made against all 20 of the measurements. I have the information in front of me, but I am conscious of time, so I am not going to read it out for Mr Kerr, but he needs to accept that progress is being made and that further progress is coming. I see him shaking his head, but I want to ensure that he understands that further progress is coming. There will be progress before the end of the summer term on consequences, which I know he is interested in. There will be progress in relation to our anti-racism work.
We are going to develop further interim guidance ahead of the summer, and guidance on risk assessments where there are incidents of harm. The trade unions have welcomed that work, and they are taking part in the forming of that guidance and support.
I hope that the member welcomes the progress. I can hear him chuntering; I am more than happy to share the action plan, but I would point to the answer to the Government-initiated question that was published some weeks ago and set out the progress in more detail.