Official Report 900KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on actions to support improved 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.
14:21
In May, I updated Parliament on progress to deliver the national action plan on behaviour and relationships in schools, which was published last August. At that time, I committed to updating Parliament following the publication of new guidance on consequences, and my statement today fulfils that commitment.
Almost 4,000 school staff from all over Scotland participated in the “Behaviour in Scottish Schools” report, which was published in November 2023. That research captured the challenges in our schools, particularly following the pandemic, highlighting trends of worsening behaviour, challenges with communication in some of our youngest pupils and a worrying increase in misogyny.
However, it would be too easy to paint a relentlessly negative picture of school life in Scotland. For context, the majority of school staff reported generally good behaviour by most or all pupils. We all have a responsibility, as MSPs, not to seek to demonise a generation of young people and must all remember that those are the young people who lived through a global pandemic.
However, we must prevent violence and aggression and must also address the issues that school staff identified as having the greatest overall negative impact: talking out of turn, hindering other pupils from getting on with their work, and the inappropriate use of mobile phones. That is the evidence base that has informed the national guidance on consequences.
Teachers—because of their aptitude, knowledge, skills and pedagogy—know how to get the best from our young people and how to manage and support them. At times, as is the case here in the chamber, keeping everyone engaged and attentive can be challenging. Disruption happens, depending on the class, the time of day and proximity to the end of term. Our teachers use a variety of tools to maintain order every day. Sometimes, a tone of voice or a stern look is sufficient to help someone get back on track. Sometimes, a reminder of expectations of behaviour and agreed practices is required to stop matters from escalating. Occasionally, greater action is required, including time out of class or, as a last resort, exclusion. In my experience, what is needed always depends on the situation and on the young person.
During the launch of the consequences guidance at St Brendan’s primary school in Motherwell, I was impressed by how readily children who were as young as eight could articulate the processes for resolving conflict. Pupils spoke confidently about their responsibility to try to resolve disputes themselves in the first instance before asking for help from peer mediators and then, if they were still struggling, seeking the support of a trusted adult. The parents I spoke to at St Brendan’s understood that their children are still developing and that within every school, irrespective of its strengths, there will, at times, be challenges.
However, what parents really valued at St Brendan’s was the headteacher’s consistent communication about what was being done when problems arose and how they, as parents, were being supported. Parents at St Brendan’s trusted teachers to take the necessary steps that were appropriate to the situation to keep their children safe, and, in so doing, to allow them to learn.
The thoughtful practice that was exhibited by staff at St Brendan’s primary school, under the watchful leadership of the headteacher, Maura Oates, can be found in schools all over Scotland today. The approaches that are used by staff at St Brendan’s reflect the intent and purpose behind the national guidance, which has had direct input from teachers. Consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment. Setting boundaries for children and young people supports their development and, crucially, helps them to feel safe. Indeed, that mirrors good parenting advice and practice.
It is clear that relationships and behaviour in our schools have changed following the pandemic. Lockdown impacted on the understanding of expectations, and there is a need for all members of the school community—staff, young people and parents—to work together to reset that relationship. Our teachers cannot do that on their own.
The consequences guidance reinforces the principles of prevention and de-escalation, which underpin our approach to relationships and behaviour in schools. The guidance seeks to ensure that everyone in a school community understands the boundaries and expectations for behaviour and the processes for when things go wrong. It emphasises the importance of taking the action that is required in the moment to ensure a safe and respectful learning environment. It is underpinned by reflective questions and illustrative examples of consequences that can be used to support schools’ decision making.
It is important that the guidance was overseen by the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools—also known as SAGRABIS—which includes representatives from local government, the teaching trade unions, parents’ representatives, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and violence prevention experts. Crucially, the guidance was created by an experienced group of practitioners, which includes current headteachers, members of our teaching trade unions and educational psychologists. The consequences that are provided for in the guidance are therefore drawn from practice that is recognised as effective by the professionals whom we trust to work in our schools every day. Those people are the experts in what works. The NASUWT has welcomed the publication of the guidance, saying that it is
“an important step forward in our continued focus on driving down levels of disruption and violence in our schools.”
The consequences guidance was published alongside an update on risk assessments, to support schools in dealing with violent and aggressive behaviour. New guidance on risk assessments gives support to staff to identify and assess risk associated with a young person’s behaviour and to plan the actions that might be taken to control or mitigate that risk. The risk assessment guidance also contains a range of examples from schools across Scotland, which staff can use and adapt for their own context. Although risk assessments should be used only in the most severe cases, where there is a foreseeable risk of harm or a pattern of behaviour causing concern, they are an important tool for ensuring that appropriate strategies are in place to support a young person and to support schools to keep everyone safe.
We also need to support implementation in our schools, which is why Education Scotland has produced new online practical resources on relationships and behaviour. A programme of professional learning is being delivered between now and December, including bespoke sessions on the new guidance. Over the past two weeks alone, more than 350 staff attended a webinar on the consequences guidance, and a further 169 attended a session on the new risk assessment update.
However, the publication of the consequences guidance reflects only the latest progress in delivering our national action plan. Last year, alongside the national action plan, we published clear national guidance on mobile phones, anti-bullying measures and responding to racism and racist incidents. That is in addition to action on preventing gender-based violence in schools through the gender-based violence framework. That work has been further strengthened by the launch of the digital discourse initiative, a resource that supports teachers to challenge online hate and disinformation, which we know is disproportionately impacting women and girls in our schools.
Changing behaviours requires support, which is why we have put in place extra funding for training and support staff. Additionally, during this financial year, we have provided a further £29 million to recruit and retain staff to support children and young people with additional support needs, and we have increased funding to £186.5 million to help councils to maintain teacher numbers.
The national action plan, as members know, is a three-year plan. The next steps will focus on working with local councils to improve the consistency of recording and monitoring incidents, update our national guidance on exclusions, publish whole-school approaches to addressing racism and racist incidents in schools, and improve attendance, on which I will launch our national marketing campaign in the coming week.
All MSPs and parties carry a responsibility to support Scotland’s children and young people in our schools and the school staff who work hard to support their outcomes and life chances. In April last year, I met the Opposition party leaders to talk to them about the development of the national action plan. I am also keen to visit a school with Opposition spokespeople so that, together, we can observe the impact in practice of the national behaviour action plan. I am absolutely delighted that St Brendan’s primary school has agreed to host such a visit. My private office will be in touch in due course to arrange a mutually convenient time for us all to attend a visit that I think will be really worth while.
There is no place for violence or abuse by anyone, of anyone, about anything, in our schools. When it occurs, it requires an immediately escalated response. If a child’s behaviour poses a risk of harm to themselves or others, staff need to respond very quickly. Supporting and empowering our teachers to do that has been a central part of my approach in the development of our national action plan. The national guidance was written by, with and for our teachers—the very teachers to whom we entrust the education of our children and young people every day. The national action plan provides that shared vision, with a consistent approach that provides a strong platform on which to act. I remain committed to delivering on that ambition. Scotland’s schools must be safe, positive and inclusive spaces for learning, for every teacher and member of staff and, crucially, for all our children and young people.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. Before the schools returned, I spoke to several teachers who told me that, for the first time in their careers, they did not want to go back to school, due to the levels of poor discipline and violence that they have personally experienced in their schools. Today’s statement is very much a repeat of what the Scottish Government has already outlined. Unbelievably, it concerns a national action plan that includes no new actions—just more talking and a marketing campaign.
I will outline my concerns to the cabinet secretary. I believe that the Government has failed to take forward real changes. There are no clear outcomes or consequences in the guidance on how teachers can respond to any violence that they might experience. Teachers who are punched or who have chairs thrown at them do not need to be told to undertake a risk assessment. The Scottish Government’s incoherent guidance and reluctance to even mention effective consequences, let alone apply them, is letting down hard-working school staff and the majority of pupils who simply want to learn without disruption. Is the cabinet secretary asking pupils, teachers, parents and carers to wait another two years before the Government will outline how it will get a grip of violence in our schools?
This year, there have been a number of new developments in relation to the national action plan, which I have set out to the Parliament today. The Opposition asked that we do that at the end of the previous term. We were not able to accommodate that request in the final week of that term, due to the stage 3 proceedings of the Education (Scotland) Bill, so I am pleased to have done so today.
The guidance that was published at the end of last term was new, as far as the provisions on consequences were concerned. It was, of course, welcomed by the NASUWT. I put on record again that all our teaching unions have been involved in the development of the advice—it has not come from the Government or ministers—and it is important that we respect their views on what works. It is hugely important to remember that those people are the experts in our schools, and we place our trust in them every day.
Miles Briggs mentioned speaking to teachers over the summer recess. I did so, too, and I engage with the teaching profession regularly. I hope that the member will take up my offer to visit St Brendan’s to talk to the teachers in that school, who, at the end of June, were very clear with me about the difference that having high expectations and a really consistent approach to behaviour in their school makes to how they can drive learning and teaching.
Fundamentally, we need calm and consistent learning environments in our classrooms. Good behaviour allows teachers to teach. The national action plan is part of the solution, but I accept the member’s challenge that it is not the whole solution. We have to look more broadly than at schools alone.
For example, one point that I made in my statement was about the need for partners to work together. Last night, I attended the annual general meeting of the Glenrothes and Levenmouth District Scouts, where people were talking about the involvement of parents and carers in the wider community. This cannot be just about schools—we have to have a broader integration of support in relation to the expectations for our children and young people.
I hope that the member will engage with me on the next steps in relation to the action plan. Indeed, if he has any further concrete suggestions that he would like to bring to the table, I will be happy to hear from him—although I put on the record that the examples that are provided in the consequences guidance have come from the teaching profession itself.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. Scottish Labour welcomes the publication of guidance on consequences and risk assessments; indeed, we and others have been calling for those things for many years. However, I have to say to the cabinet secretary that it is not enough.
The need for change is urgent, yet it has been three academic years since research showed rising concern about behaviour. In that time, Scotland’s incredible young people have achieved a lot against the odds, and school staff have risen to the challenges as they always do. However, the reality is that they have done that without the widespread change of direction that is needed from their Government.
The statement failed to address the issues of rising staff workload, a demoralised workforce, and young people who are failed by a lack of support for additional support needs, and next to no access to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments, and child and adolescent mental health services care. It failed to address the systemic change that is needed.
What changes will the Government make to workforce planning to meet the on-going challenges? What additional new action will the cabinet secretary take to address the lack of support for pupils with ASN? Finally, and crucially, why has it taken three academic years for us to get a statement that contains no new actions, and that fails to rise to the systemic challenges that schools face?
I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for welcoming the guidance. However, I put on the record that I think that that was an unfair characterisation of the Government’s actions since the publication of the BISSR report. I will therefore recount some of the actions that we have taken since the publication of that research.
One of the issues that BISSR highlighted was the role of school inspections in gathering data. Now, the chief inspector is taking direct action to ensure that we have enhanced evidence on relationships and behaviour from every school inspection. I announced that change in November 2023. We also provided funding to support staff and, for example, those who work with challenging behaviour directly in our schools. That was a direct response to the BISSR report’s findings, which I also announced in 2023. We also provided support to improve attendance, including guidance on professional learning, networking and exemplification.
Today, I have given a statement on consequences and risk assessments that relate to the national action plan, which I launched last year. It is therefore an unfair characterisation to suggest that no action has been taken in the interim period. In that period, there has also been the publication of the gender-based violence in schools framework, which has been important in challenging issues around misogyny, which is currently a toxic issue in our schools and, of course, in our political discourse. There was also the interim guidance on racism and racist incidents and the mobile phone guidance that was issued last year.
Therefore, I do not accept that the examples that I provided today in relation to risk assessments and consequences sit in a silo. They are part of a package of responses and funding from this Government, which I have spoken to.
I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer. The member also made a number of points in relation to staff workload and workforce planning. I hope that it will give her some comfort to know that I will meet representatives of the General Teaching Council for Scotland later this week in relation to those very issues.
Staff workload is a matter for the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, but I am absolutely committed to our manifesto commitment to reduce class contact. Only by creating the time for teachers will we get the conditions that are necessary to drive education reform.
Ms Duncan-Glancy’s final point related to ASN. She and I, and other members from across the chamber, met to discuss the ASN review last week. I look forward to working with the member on that point and, I hope, arriving at a cross-party consensus on how we can drive a review that meets the aspirations that she rightly set out.
There is a great deal of interest in the statement, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
The importance of the contribution of pupils feeling supported towards improving their behaviour in schools cannot be overestimated. Will the minister speak further on how the Scottish Government’s 2025-26 budget is delivering measures to assist young folk throughout every stage of their school experience?
As I alluded to in my statement, the budget makes provision for an extra £29 million in relation to additional support needs. I was very keen that that additionality was used to support, for example, additional specialist staff, whom we know make a real difference in our classrooms. However, the budget also provided for an uplift in funding to protect teacher numbers.
Pupil teacher ratios in Scotland are lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is welcome, but having an adequate complement of staff in our schools is fundamental to driving the change in behaviour that we need to see. The budget sets out the extra provision of support that is available.
The statement mentions that
“Consequences are an essential part of a supportive learning environment.”
The cabinet secretary knows that I agree with that.
As the next steps include
“updating our national guidance on exclusions”,
could the cabinet secretary elaborate on the detail? Will the new guidance result in more exclusions? Given the dubiety that the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise displayed in the Education, Children and Young People Committee a few months ago about whether care-experienced children should be excluded, how does the cabinet secretary hope to balance the guidance with commitments that have been made to care-experienced people in the Promise?
We have discussed expectations around exclusion at length in the chamber. In recent years—I can give the member the statistics on this if she wants, though I suspect that she will not welcome them—we have seen a real reduction in the number of exclusions and perhaps a reticence from staff to use them as a consequence in order to respond to challenging behaviour. I have been absolutely clear that exclusions exist for a reason—they can and should be used and applied by teachers, and it is in their professional gift to do so. They have my full support to use them in scenarios that merit such a response.
The member asked a question in relation to care-experienced young people. Again, I put on the record that I am recused from the Promise, as the member will know. However, I will ask the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise to write to her directly on the important issue that she has raised today.
I am sure that, like me, many members will have had mailbags full of various commentary about the challenges, disruption and bad behaviour that are caused by mobile devices in classrooms. I have recently been watching a Korean drama in which mobile phones are collected at the start of every lesson. A few months ago, I visited a private school in my constituency where they collect mobile phones at the beginning of the day.
Does the cabinet secretary share my view that we need to look at all that very carefully? We need to create some kind of universality, because our schools have divergent policies on mobile phones. Would it not be best for teachers just to collect them at the start of each lesson in order to avoid such challenges, disruption and bad behaviour?
I put on the record that I am very sorry to learn that Mr Stewart will be standing down at the end of the parliamentary session. He will be sorely missed by the Scottish National Party group.
The use of mobile phones in our schools was an issue that was highlighted by the behaviour in Scottish schools research, and the teaching trade unions have done a great deal of work on the impact that mobile phones can have in our classrooms. I have often reflected on the use of mobile phones in the chamber, and the member might have a view on confiscating MSPs’ phones in order to improve all our behaviour. There is something in the mix to consider about how adults behave and how we expect young people to behave. Mobile phones affect us all when it comes to how we engage and speak to one another, whether we pay attention in debates or what we do when we sit in committees—I am not immune from that.
As a teacher, I undertook the practice of gathering mobile phones. It can be challenging and can lead to conflict. The national guidance sets out a consistent national approach that empowers headteachers to ban mobile phones should they see fit. The legislative power to do so does not currently sit as a ministerial power in Scotland, but I take on board Mr Stewart’s point.
I see that the Presiding Officer is gesticulating. Lots of schools take different approaches to banning mobile phones. The school that I last taught in has a very effective policy in place. I am more than happy to take the points that Mr Stewart has raised today back to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in our discussions about how the bans are operating in practice.
In her statement, the cabinet secretary talked about working with local councils to improve consistency in recording and monitoring incidents. In 2023, she spoke about work to alter school inspections in order to capture that data. How will the consistency in applying consequences be monitored across local authorities by the Scottish Government?
In Scotland, we have 32 local authorities with a statutory responsibility for delivering education. One of the challenges that we have often seen with recording bullying incidents is a lack of consistency across the piece. That is why, for example, when Opposition parties submit freedom of information requests to local authorities, it is very difficult to get a read-across, because the authorities might use completely different systems in recording and monitoring. I want to see far greater consistency in that regard.
One action that we are taking, which we announced in the programme for government, is to hold a data conference with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and statisticians in the Scottish Government to talk directly to them about the practicalities of how they gather data at local level.
We are also having discussions—later this afternoon, in fact—with the education and childcare assurance board, along with local government, to talk about the operability of SEEMiS. As the member will know, as a fellow teacher, the operability of SEEMiS varies between different local authorities. That may change the way in which incidents are recorded and, in so doing, may not allow us to take a consistent look across the piece.
I accept the point that the member has raised, but I hope that he will take some comfort from the action that we are taking with regard to the data summit and the work that I will undertake later this afternoon with the education and childcare assurance board.
I want to focus on the further £29 million for children with additional support needs, which—as the cabinet secretary knows—applies to an extensive range of needs, from bereavement counselling and support to dyslexia and extreme behavioural challenges as a result of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. For those children, to be frank, inclusion—at least full time—is not suitable.
Will some of that £29 million be applied to alternatives to inclusion, either whole or part time, in the interests of the most challenging children and of their classmates?
I discussed that issue last week with members of the Opposition, with regard to the review that I mentioned in my response to Ms Duncan-Glancy. It is now more than 20 years since the introduction of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, and in that time we have seen an exponential increase in the number of pupils with an additional support need. The current ASN landscape in Scotland looks markedly different from that which existed back in 2004.
On the member’s point about the £29 million, I have made clear, in engaging with local authorities, my expectation that that money will be used for specialist staff. The member talked about it being used to support bespoke approaches. I have seen local councils and headteachers using a variety of different approaches at present, including, for example, taking small groups of children out of class to provide them with bespoke, tailored support. Some of the money for that currently comes from pupil equity funding. I hope and expect that the £29 million that the member mentions will be used to employ additional specialist staff in our schools.
The principle of consent is an essential part of effective sex and relationships education and can help to tackle issues of behaviour and violence at their root. Does the cabinet secretary agree that if we are to tackle those issues of behaviour and violence, in particular against women and girls, all young people, especially boys and young men, should receive education on the importance of consent?
It is hugely important that young people are taught about these issues in school. The member will be aware that we are reviewing the relationships, sexual health and parenthood education guidance in that regard. We published an analysis of the responses to the guidance at the end of March, and the updated guidance will be published before the end of the current term. I think that the member has previously asked me questions on the issue, and I am happy to meet him to discuss the topic that he has raised today, because it is hugely important.
The guidance on behaviour is incredibly long, and the section on consequences is stuck at the back, in an appendix, so I am sceptical about what impact it will have on actual classroom practice. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary when she will measure the impact of the guidance, and when the next survey will be conducted.
Secondly, is the cabinet secretary prepared to move on mobile phones? I receive numerous reports of different practices in different schools, even though the evidence is now pretty compelling on the improvement in behaviour if mobile phones are removed not just from the classroom, but from the school.
I appreciate that the guidance is long and there are appendices—I think that that is welcome, and my hope is that the consequences element is not lost. There are a number of different prompts at the back of the guidance—it is not an exhaustive list, but the examples have come directly from teachers themselves.
My expectation, from engaging with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, is that the behaviour guidance will be used, for example, to inform in-service training days; I know that a number of schools were doing that at the start of term on returning from the summer holidays a couple of weeks ago.
It is important that the national guidance informs different approaches in our schools. The issue was raised with me earlier this year by Mike Corbett from NASUWT Scotland, and as a result—as Mr Rennie will know—Tony Buchanan and I wrote directly to all directors to encourage schools to update their guidance accordingly. It will take time, and I accept that.
Mr Rennie asked when we will measure the impact of the guidance. It is a three-year plan, so he can expect another update from the Government next year in relation to the progress that we have made.
With regard to mobile phones, I think that I responded to Mr Stewart on that, and we have previously talked about this issue at length in the chamber. At the current time, the legislative power does not rest with ministers—it is a matter for local authorities. I have been clear that we trust our headteachers to take decisions about mobile phones. However, I accept Mr Rennie’s point about their absence improving educational outcomes in our classrooms. Every headteacher whom I have spoken to who has imposed a ban has seen a direct correlation between the ban and an improvement in learning and teaching. I will take away the point that the member raises today, but, in the national guidance, we have been very clear that I—and, certainly, the Government—support a mobile phone ban.
Over recent years, my office and I have received an increased number of queries relating to bullying in schools. Indeed, just yesterday at one of my surgeries, I saw a constituent who had had to move her child to another primary school due to extreme levels of bullying that were having a detrimental impact on the young person’s wellbeing.
The cabinet secretary has always been clear that bullying is not acceptable, and she worked on the issue even before she entered Government. I therefore ask her for an update on plans to tackle bullying in our schools and on how it sits within the national action plan that she has updated us on today.
I thank Mr MacGregor for his question and I am sorry to hear the examples that he has cited. Again, I put on the record that bullying of any kind is unacceptable and must be addressed promptly and effectively.
In November last year, we published updated anti-bullying guidance, “Respect for All”, for all adults who are working with children and young people. That refreshed guidance brings together the updates to the previous version of “Respect for All” that we published in 2017, as well as additional guidance on recording and monitoring, which is another issue that has been raised today. The guidance aims to encourage a proactive and inclusive anti-bullying approach and it supports all adults who are working with or caring for children and young people to create inclusive environments where bullying is not able to thrive.
We have also updated the national definition of bullying by simplifying the language, because recording it has been a challenge at times. That update will also provide more examples of what is and is not bullying.
If Mr MacGregor would like to write to me with more examples, I would be more than happy to correspond with him or meet him to discuss the issues that he has raised on behalf of his constituents.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the statement that she gave in the chamber in May about the issue. During that exchange, I asked her about supply teachers in particular and the group Scottish Teachers for Permanence, and she responded to that question. I followed it up again on 11 June at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and asked when the cabinet secretary would meet Scottish Teachers for Permanence. She said:
“I am scheduled to meet the group’s members shortly. You raised this ... with me in the chamber and I am scheduled to meet them in the coming weeks, I think—before the end of the term.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 11 June 2025; c 25.]
I have spoken with Scottish Teachers for Permanence this afternoon. Not only do its members say that the cabinet secretary has not met them, but they say that they have had no correspondence with the cabinet secretary since November last year. Why is the cabinet secretary saying that she will be meeting the group’s members when they have not heard from her? Does she agree that she should meet them as a matter of priority?
I gently say to Mr Ross that his final statement in relation to there having been no correspondence since last November is not accurate. There has been consistent correspondence between my private office and the group that he outlined. My special adviser contacted it during summer recess and we have not heard back from the group. We have tried repeatedly to obtain a date to meet the group. I have now—on the record—committed three times to doing so, but the group has not yet replied. I put that on the record today. If Mr Ross would like, I can share details of that correspondence and our attempts to arrange that meeting. I would be very pleased to have the meeting that I have already agreed to.
Violence against women and girls has no place in Scotland’s society, and the opportunity to establish that precedent in the classroom is an important step in tackling the issue.
Will the cabinet secretary advise on the ways in which Scottish Government investment and guidance are contributing towards addressing gender-based violence in schools?
The Government is absolutely clear that harassment or abuse in any form—whether that is in the workplace, in schools or in the home—is completely reprehensible and has to stop. The conduct and behaviour of perpetrators need to change if we are to end harassment and abuse. We have to tackle the underlying attitudes and inequalities that perpetuate such behaviour.
As I alluded to earlier, we have published a national framework for schools to help to tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence. We are also funding Time for Inclusive Education’s digital discourse initiative, to ensure that it remains free for schools to access. That is really important.
Earlier this year, I was at Stonelaw high school for the launch of that initiative, and I talked to teachers and young people about their experiences of behaviour online. It is important that that new resource supports our teachers to challenge the online hate and disinformation that, as I mentioned earlier, is disproportionately impacting girls and female staff in our schools.
I attended the Government’s youth violence summit, where young people told the cabinet secretary that actions must have consequences. The latest Scottish Government guidance says that teachers should make eye contact and use hand signals to address bad behaviour, and that exclusion is a “last resort”. Eye contact and hand signals are not consequences. Will the cabinet secretary tell the young people who we met what the consequences actually are for abusive behaviour in the classroom? Does she think that a pupil should be excluded if they physically attack a teacher?
It is difficult to comment on individual circumstances. In relation to the point that the member raised, my expectation is that pupils would be excluded. The guidance sets out a number of different approaches to classroom management. Eye contact is an approach to classroom management, and I also observe that it is an approach to how we all manage ourselves in the chamber. If we did not have eye contact, we would not be able to talk to one other. Part of this is about improving relationships in schools with our young people and staff.
The member talked about examples. A range of examples is included in the consequences guidance, such as being educated elsewhere in the school
“for a period of time... to allow matters to calm, time for planning and for any additional staffing or alternative placements to be put in place”.
Other examples are “exclusion from school”, which we have discussed previously, and the
“Risk Assessment and safety planning... if appropriate, that may have mitigations that are restrictive or limiting”
for the pupil concerned.
Smartphones in schools are harming mental health. This is no longer just a debate—we know that that is the case. They are disrupting our classrooms, driving bullying and exposing pupils to adult content, which is very disturbing. No school that has banned phones has ever reversed that decision. Will the Government now show leadership by supporting a national smartphone ban? Our headteachers need that support from their Government.
Will the Government also remove unlawful guidance that has confused teachers and undermined sex-based safeguarding, and ensure that relationships, sexual health and parenthood materials are age appropriate and based on consent?
I did not quite catch the end of the question, but I will be happy to write to the member on that point. I discussed mobile phone guidance in my response to Mr Rennie. We have been very clear as a Government that, should headteachers see fit, they will be supported by the Government to ban mobile phones. Fundamentally, the position that the Government has taken throughout this process is that we trust our teachers to take those decisions, and that is a decision that, at the current time, I stand by.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Urgent Question