Official Report 1025KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17524, in the name of Miles Briggs, on a review of additional support for learning and the implementation of mainstreaming.
15:24
I am pleased to open this important debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. The report on additional support for learning that Audit Scotland published earlier this year was damning, and it highlighted the Scottish National Party Government’s failure to plan and resource accordingly to tackle the issue. Teachers and school staff face unprecedented pressures, and our most vulnerable pupils are being let down.
More than 40 per cent of Scottish pupils receive additional support for learning. In Edinburgh, in my region, the number of pupils with additional support needs has grown by more than 165 per cent over the past 10 years. ASN pupils now represent 39 per cent and 52 per cent of Edinburgh’s primary and secondary school population, respectively.
The Audit Scotland report rightly calls on the Scottish Government and councils to
“fundamentally rethink how they plan, fund and staff additional support for learning as part of core school education in Scotland.”
Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General for Scotland, said:
“The Scottish Government has failed to plan effectively for its inclusive approach to additional support for learning. Current gaps in data mean it is unclear whether all children’s right to have an education that fully develops their personality, talents and abilities is being met.
The Scottish Government and councils urgently need better quality data to understand pupils’ additional support needs and the resources required to provide support to enable all pupils to reach their full potential.”
Ruth MacLeod, a member of the Accounts Commission, said:
“Councils and the Scottish Government must fundamentally rethink how additional support for learning is planned and provided”.
I agree, and that is why we have brought this debate to Parliament.
Fundamentally, we need to urgently understand the levels of additional support for learning in our schools and realistically look at what the Scottish Government and our councils can do to meet that demand and prioritise resources. Teachers tell us again and again that we need leadership to understand how we are going to provide that additional support and what that will look like on the ground. I am deeply concerned that the message from teachers and parents is that they cannot cope unless urgent and significant investment is made to enable schools to effectively deliver the support that we need. It is also important that we understand how the implementation of mainstreaming has impacted on teachers and the wider school community, and the additional pressures that that has brought.
In recent weeks, I have raised two issues at First Minister’s question time. I raised the issue of children and young people who are seeking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism diagnosis pathways being removed from child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists without suitable alternatives being made available and without their being told about or signposted to third sector support.
The Scottish Government’s press release celebrated its meeting the target for referral to CAMHS, which it set almost a decade ago, for the first time. However, I know from speaking to parents whom I represent here in Lothian that that was a slap in the face for parents who have been waiting and waiting, many of whom have now decided that they will seek private diagnosis, with no clear pathway for the delivery of shared care with GP surgeries for their children.
The truth is that the only reason why ministers have been able to say that the target was met is that children and young people who are seeking an ADHD or autism diagnosis have been removed from those figures. One parent said to me that it feels like those waiting times have been gerrymandered, and I agree. That is why we are calling for a review, and I hope that Parliament will back that.
I am also deeply concerned that, in recent months, three of our major health boards—my board in Lothian, the minister’s board in Highland and the board in Tayside—have been escalated to level 3 of the Government’s support and intervention framework as a result of their mental health performance, specifically on CAMHS. Given that the figures will have changed, how will they be judged on improvement now that many children are being taken off that waiting list?
It is not only me who is asking that question. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has said that the number of children who are on separate waiting lists to be assessed for neurodevelopmental conditions is now not routinely being published by the Scottish Government. It says that the Scottish Government needs to be more transparent, and I agree with that call.
Dr Laura Sutherland, who is the vice-chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland’s child and adolescent faculty, said that children who are at the most risk are prioritised, which can result in people with a neurodevelopmental condition waiting even longer. She said:
“Often there is not an immediate risk which is why some of these young people can wait for longer but I think overall the impact is longer term ... It means young people can’t get into education or be supported adequately and ultimately some of these young people will go on to develop mental health conditions on the back of neurodiverse conditions.”
Those two issues are critical—we need action, and ministers need to take that forward.
I turn to the amendments. I have no problem with the Government amendment, but that is because it simply states that Parliament
“agrees that all children and young people should receive the help that they need to thrive”.
The Scottish Conservatives agree, but we need to ask why, after 18 years, the Scottish Government is not delivering that.
I welcome what is contained in the Labour amendment. I very much agree that, 10 years on from the Morgan review, we have not seen the progress that we should have seen.
The Green Party amendment was not selected for debate, but it points out—importantly—a
“concern that only 1,215 children in Scotland have a coordinated support plan ... which represents just 0.4% of all children with a recognised additional support need”.
At that rate, ministers will continue to fail. We need a rethink, which is why the Scottish Conservatives are calling for action.
I believe that there are solutions out there to support what we want to see. Last week, I visited the Yard, which is a wonderful charity that is based in Edinburgh. I apologise to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, as I may have inadvertently signed her up for a visit to see its facility and the fantastic resources that it has developed to provide models of support to teachers and the school community more widely. We need those models to be embraced and rolled out nationally.
I hope that today’s debate will act as a wake-up call for ministers, the Scottish Government and councils to recognise that they are not delivering the support that our children and young people need. I hope that, if Parliament supports my motion at decision time, we will get clear timelines from the Scottish Government on when the key reviews will take place. We urgently need that action.
Teachers and parents are growing more and more concerned at the failure to provide and resource the planning of additional support for learning in our schools across Scotland. That must change, and that is why the Scottish Conservatives continue to stand up for pupils, parents and teachers and demand that SNP ministers deliver the support that our children and young people need to thrive.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Audit Scotland report calling for a fundamental review of planning and resourcing of additional support for learning in Scotland; recognises concerns over declining numbers of additional support workers and classroom assistants; highlights the need to understand the rise in pupils with additional support needs to better target resources and training; calls on the Scottish Government and local authorities to deliver a new model of support alongside the NHS Education for Scotland trauma-informed practice training on neurodivergence and autism; expresses concern over changes to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism diagnosis pathways removing children from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) support without suitable alternatives, and calls on the Scottish Ministers to undertake a national review into the implementation of mainstreaming policy and the availability of specialist additional school places across local authorities.
15:32
I thank Mr Briggs for lodging his motion, which calls for a review of additional support for learning and the implementation of mainstreaming. I confirm that we will vote for the motion and the amendments as we are keen to seek a collaborative effort from members across the chamber to try to solve some of these challenging problems.
I have visited the Yard and I assure members that it is well worth a visit.
Does Maree Todd agree with the call from Miles Briggs that today’s debate must be a “wake-up call” for a fundamental change in how we move forward in this area?
As members will hear as I go through my speech—if I have an opportunity to get into it—and as the cabinet secretary will confirm, the Government is already taking forward a whole suite of work in this area. We are very keen to hear what more we can do and what would add value to the work that is already happening.
I begin by highlighting that the approach that is set out in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is highly inclusive. There continues to be consensus around the principles of inclusion on which our system is based, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Morgan report and, more recently, the Education, Children and Young People Committee of this Parliament have unanimously supported the inclusive approach that the 2004 act sets out.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills told the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association that she thought that the law that the minister has just described was “a bit old”. What exactly did she mean?
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will explain all that later. The Government is always looking to improve—there is no question about that.
The motion refers to a decline in the number of pupil support assistants. Although I understand the concern around that, I point out that the number of pupil support assistants has increased by 1,800 since 2020 and is currently at the second-highest level on record. We continue to invest £15 million a year to help them to respond to children’s needs.
The cabinet secretary will say a great deal more in her closing remarks in this important debate about how we are tackling the increased demand for support for learning, but the motion gives me the opportunity to address recent coverage that has risked causing parents unnecessary worry and anxiety. That relates to neurodevelopmental services for children with conditions such as autism and ADHD. In recent weeks, some members have described children who are seeking a neurodevelopmental diagnosis as having been removed from CAMHS waiting lists, and Mr Briggs has repeated that rhetoric. The implication, whether intentional or otherwise, is that children and families have been left without alternative support. I want to reassure parents and be very clear with the Parliament that that is not the case.
It is mental health awareness week and it seems timely to urge all members to take care with the language that they use, given that it can be unintentionally stigmatising and could result in people not coming forward to seek support. That is incumbent on us all.
I agree with the minister’s point about language, particularly as it is mental health awareness week, but the reality is that, in Glasgow, for example, 9,000 young people have been moved from CAMHS waiting lists and put on to alternative pathways, which eventually lead nowhere.
CAMHS is simply not the correct service for children who are seeking a diagnosis for neurodevelopmental conditions, unless they are seeking support for a co-existing mental health condition.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take one more intervention on that point.
I have been listening to what the minister has to say. The biggest problem—and parents will say this to all of us—is that young people have to wait for years on each of those pathways. I have spoken to parents who have had to sell things so that they could get a private diagnosis for their child. Once they have a diagnosis, it will unlock support. However, if a diagnosis is not recognised, a GP surgery will not provide care. Parents are being forced to go private, which is a real concern. I do not think that the Scottish Government really understands what that means in the real world.
Our overriding focus is on ensuring that people get the right help and support and that that help and support is available for our young people, particularly in the education system. For many, that is best provided through a neurodevelopmental pathway and not CAMHS. I make no apology for seeking to ensure that our young people are directed to the most appropriate service for their individual needs. That approach is right for everyone—it is right for the people who need specialist neurodevelopmental support and it is right for CAMHS, as it can focus on providing the right help for young people who need the specialist mental health support that the service offers.
As part of our continued commitment to ensuring that the right support is available to our young people, the Scottish Government, in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has undertaken a review of the implementation of the national neurodevelopmental specification, which sets the expectations for services across Scotland. That review provides an opportunity to reflect on learning and progress and it will inform improvements to support health boards and local authorities to deliver the specification.
There has been a significant rise in the demand for neurodevelopmental diagnosis in recent years. That has been experienced across the whole of the United Kingdom and by all services. Figures on the number of children who are seeking a diagnosis are not currently reported nationally or published. I acknowledge that work is needed to improve the quality of the data that we have on neurodevelopmental support and services and gain a better understanding of the levels of need and the support that children and young people currently receive. We are working to improve that.
I appreciate that the minister was very generous in accepting interventions, but she will need to conclude as there is no time in hand.
I fully recognise the important role that a diagnosis can play, but we have to recognise that diagnosis alone does not define or determine a child’s support needs. That is why our national neurodevelopmental specification—
Minister, you need to conclude, as you are well over your time. You will also need to move your amendment. Please do so now.
We have clear recommendations that support—
Minister, I ask you to move your amendment and to please resume your seat.
I will conclude.
I move amendment S6M-17524.3, to insert at end:
“agrees that all children and young people should receive the help that they need to thrive, and thanks Scotland’s hard-working teachers, support staff and the wider education workforce for all that they do every day to support pupils.”
We have almost no time in hand. I can deal only with the time allocation that I have been given and I cannot magic time out of thin air.
15:39
All young people, including those with additional support needs, deserve the opportunity to learn and thrive, and our teachers, support staff, parents and pupils must be thanked immensely for all that they do every day, despite the system working against them, to make that so. Therefore, we welcome today’s debate and will support the motion in Miles Briggs’s name.
We will also support the Government’s amendment, although I have to say that its focus on warm words and its brevity rather indicate that the Government had little to add by way of action in a space that is so desperate for that. For Scotland’s teachers, support staff, parents and pupils, that will be disappointing. That is why our amendment adds crucial actions that we believe are necessary to support young people to thrive, and to do that alongside their peers, to be included in their schools and to get the support that they need.
The current system is not delivering that. As the committee said, the situation is intolerable. The reality is that, on this Government’s watch, the experience of children and young people with additional support needs, their families and the staff who support them is one of exhaustion, exclusion and crisis.
The motion calls for a review of the implementation of mainstreaming and a new model of support, because action is needed. I also want to be clear that the failure is not around the presumption of mainstreaming, which allows children to learn together with their peers; the failure is on the part of this Government for not building an education system that empowers that.
The ability of a child to learn together with their peers matters, and I know that because I lived it. I went to a mainstream school and I did well, but that was not by accident. It took strong staff and strong teachers who had the time and capacity to support me to get the education that I did. That is what every family in Scotland deserves; they should not have to fight for their child’s education to get it. However, right now, that is what they must do.
Parents feel abandoned by statutory services such as CAMHS when they are told that there is a new diagnostic pathway but are left waiting while nothing appears. I heard what the minister said about CAMHS, and I know that that service is not what all young people need, but if not CAMHS, what? Without a destination, we do not have a pathway but a crisis that leaves parents in distress and children without the support that they need.
I acknowledge that many children and young people require more targeted support from specialist services, but many other children and young people will have their needs met through universal supports at home and in school. The additional support for learning legislation is really clear that a diagnosis is not needed to get support. Further, there are also community-based supports, such as a service in North Lanarkshire that I will visit tomorrow, given that it is mental health awareness week—
I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy has got the gist, minister.
I am afraid to say that the 9,000 people on waiting lists for support in Glasgow will be pretty vocal in explaining that the universal provision is not meeting their needs and that the services that the minister thinks are there to support young people are just not there and are not statutory—that is the issue.
Most worryingly, this is a crisis that is not counted or monitored; those young people are now invisible to the Government, because they have been moved from a system that was counted—albeit there were concerns about the way in which it was counted—into a system that is not. Those people have become invisible, and that is having a huge impact on our schools, including on our teachers. There are more than 292,000 children with additional support needs in Scotland—I think that that figure might be from 2002, so it is probably slightly higher now—but there are only around 1,400 ASN teachers, which is one ASN teacher for every 200 children, against the backdrop of a system that is not providing the support that they need outwith school. That is not inclusion; it is a damning indictment of a Government that has walked away from education for all.
What my colleagues on our benches and, I hope, across the chamber believe is that what we need now is action. That starts with a proper workforce plan. We need a detailed strategy that recruits and retains teachers and ASN specialists and pastoral care staff alongside urgent reform of support services, including triage and referral, so that nobody is turned away from CAMHS or speech therapy without a plan in place.
You will need to bring your remarks to a close.
As Angela Morgan said, what we are talking about is no longer “additional”; it is the classroom now, and the Government needs to wake up and address the real problems that young people are facing.
I move amendment S6M-17524.1, to insert at end:
“; notes that the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee found that the ‘overwhelming view’ of evidence was that ’the principle of the presumption of mainstreaming is laudable and should be supported’ but that the gap between the policy intention and its implementation is ‘intolerable’ and must be addressed; believes that parents and carers of young people with additional support needs (ASN) should not have to fight for everything that their child needs; regrets that, years on from the Morgan Review, there has not been enough progress; believes that teacher workload and the lack of availability of other support services and staff that young people with ASN need have contributed to a system that is overstretched, and calls on the Scottish Ministers to urgently bring forward a comprehensive strategy to increase the ASN and pastoral care workforce, restore access to vital support services, and create a specific ASN parents forum to feed directly into policy.”
15:44
I thank Miles Briggs for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue today. I should start by making absolutely clear the Scottish Green Party’s support for the principle of mainstreaming and that we reject any attempt to undo that. However, mainstreaming without adequate resourcing just sets up failure.
It sets up something worse than failure, actually. We have children in our schools who are being traumatised by being mainstreamed without adequate resources and support to meet their needs. One of the comments that we hear most often from parents and carers, teachers and support staff is that there needs to be a catastrophic failure for a child before the right support is put in place. Children need to be traumatised before the local authority allocates adequate resources to them.
I have sympathy for local authorities and I understand the resource pressures that they are under, but it cannot be right that the system relies on failure before action is taken to support a child whose needs are known and understood in advance.
I am glad that the motion calls for a review, but such a review cannot just repeat what we already know; it needs to build on the Morgan review, the co-ordinated support plan review, the Audit Scotland paper that Miles Briggs mentioned and multiple committee inquiries. It must focus on the actions and solutions that are required to address the implementation gap in the presumption of mainstreaming. There is no need for it to repeat the issues that we are already aware of.
I accept that there are financial and resource challenges, which are the greatest barrier to success in supporting children with additional needs. However, that is not an insurmountable barrier. I gently encourage colleagues to speak to their party colleagues on the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which is about to consider my amendments to address some of the issues around local government financing that are relevant to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Alongside resourcing, we need to look at policy and legislative solutions. That is why the Green amendment, which was not selected today, pointed to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. That is a clear example of an area in which legislation needs to change. The world has moved on since 2004, as has our understanding of additional support needs.
As it stands, co-ordinated support plans are the only statutory plan available for a child with additional needs, whereby if there is a failure to support the child, they and the adults in their life have the opportunity of going to a tribunal to seek redress. However, to receive a co-ordinated support plan, a child must receive support from at least two different sources. The Parliament has already taken evidence on the challenges with that. One area in which we have made progress recently is to get educational psychologists and counsellors back into our schools. However, because they are now based in the school, that no longer counts as a separate stream of support for the child. Children who would previously have qualified for a co-ordinated support plan no longer do so, because of an improvement that we made in another area of support. That cannot be right.
I do not think that the solution is to update the primary legislation; the solution is to take the criteria for co-ordinated support plans out of primary legislation and put them into regulations, which the Government and Parliament would be able to update with far greater ease than has been possible for the relevant legislation over the past two decades.
I say to the Government, which I am sure will mention in closing the “Additional Support for Learning: Action Plan”, that it should ask itself whether, if every action in that plan is implemented and implemented well, it will shift the dial. None of us believes that it will. Every action in that plan is laudable and would be useful, but none of it will transform what is a catastrophic situation for many of the most vulnerable children in our schools—children whose needs are not being met—and for the wider school community, especially their parents and carers.
The debate is an opportunity for us to talk again about the required solutions to this problem. We have spent at least the past decade going over the same ground about what the problems are. I would really like to hear from the Government in particular this afternoon about the new actions that it will take to tackle the crisis in our schools.
15:48
I start with a letter from a primary school teacher to the First Minister:
“When I started teaching, inclusion was becoming more and more the norm within schools. Now that there are very few specialist schools, teachers are feeling the effects of inclusion on a daily basis. This policy, whilst admirable in its intention, does not work as it is drastically underfunded. In my school, it is fairly common for teachers to be physically assaulted by children whose needs cannot be met due to the inadequate level of funding. It’s even more common for our teachers to be verbally abused.”
That letter is from 2018, and it was anonymous at the time, because the teacher felt that if she raised the issues, she would be criticised for being anti-mainstream and anti-inclusion. I think that we have moved on.
It is a good step that the Government is accepting the review of mainstreaming, but we should have recognised the issue years ago, as it was raised on a regular basis by teachers, who were feeling it even back then. That was before the pandemic—we cannot blame it on the pandemic. This issue has been brewing for a long time, and I am afraid that we have ignored teachers.
It was a taboo, but now it is open, and I think that we are willing to explore it. When the cabinet secretary concludes, I would like to hear from her when the review will start, when it will conclude, and whether it will contain what Ross Greer highlighted—namely, practical actions for delivery. We have had review after review after review, but we need to have actions that make a difference.
I will talk about one other issue before I move on to practical solutions. All of this—absence, ASN, behaviour and violence—is interconnected. It is no surprise that pupils will want to stay away from school if they are not getting the appropriate support, or if they are getting violently abused, or if there is bad behaviour against them, or if they are not able to get taught properly. It is no surprise, and all those things are feeding into one another.
We need a solution that works. Part of that is about resource in the classroom. A teacher of 30 pupils will, on average, have 12 pupils who have an identified special need. Sometimes the number is much higher than that, and there is not one single need, but a variety of needs, so teachers need to be skilled in a whole range of different areas. That is almost impossible for them to manage.
So, what steps do we need to take? The mainstreaming review needs to look at the fact that the presumption of mainstreaming is almost turning into a compulsion of mainstreaming. Some parents do not want that for their child and do not think that being in the class is suitable for their child.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only four minutes.
They would prefer for them to get a specialist level of support, but it is felt that the cost that would be involved in that is prohibitive. Local authorities are therefore pushing the child into the mainstream, which does not suit them, and does not suit the rest of the class either.
The behavioural action plan needs to start working. We are way behind in terms of even the guidance that is to be implemented before we deliver the actual change. We need to take much swifter steps on behaviour.
The final bit is resources, which we know is tough. We have supported the budget this year in order to try and get more support into the classroom. However, when decisions are made about budgets, we need to consider things in the round to ensure that we are providing the appropriate level of support to make a difference.
We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.
15:52
This is a very important debate that has been brought forward by Miles Briggs and the Scottish Conservatives. I am struck by the Scottish Government amendment, which I think that the minister said was worded to simply add to the Conservative motion, because the Government wants consensus and to move forward.
Maybe it is the cynic in me, and maybe I can be proven wrong by the cabinet secretary and the minister, but will they confirm that it is a fact that they agree with every word in the motion and that, as soon as it dropped into their mailboxes, they said, “Yes, we will support that”? Or did they make discreet attempts to find a body of votes with the other parties that would strike out a lot of the critical text in the motion and replace it with something bland and vague, as the SNP always does? I do not know whether any minister wants to deny that or say that it is the truth. No—they do not.
Maybe the Government has accepted, having lost its majority when the Greens left office, that it is more difficult to stitch up deals to remove the critical elements of motions. That is healthy, as it is forcing the Government to do things that, clearly, it would not normally want to do.
There is no doubt that this is a major issue. Stephen Boyle’s Audit Scotland report on additional support for learning was deeply damning, but it was also, sadly, predictable. I will speak about a couple of recent cases that I have had in Moray. Miles Briggs also gave examples, as did Pam Duncan-Glancy in the context of Glasgow, and other speakers. It cannot be only Opposition MSPs who have people coming to their surgeries, reaching out to them and copying them into letters to the First Minister, as Willie Rennie cited. SNP ministers and back benchers must be getting the exact same thing.
When I had a surgery in Lossiemouth just a few weeks ago, a parent came to me to say that she was at the end of her tether, because she has seen very clearly that the support for her son in primary school has dwindled in recent years. He is not getting the same level of support and assistance as he did just a few years ago, and she is facing the consequences of that at home and when he is out of school.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I held a surgery in Knockando, where there was quite a harrowing case from a mum who came to me about her son. For four years, the family had tried to get an ADHD diagnosis for him through the national health service but, for four years, they had come up against brick walls and been unable to get the diagnosis that they needed. They spent personal money that had been gifted to them from the boy’s grandmother to go private in Stirling, because she could see how urgent things were. They quickly got a diagnosis and, indeed, medication, which is making a big difference to this young boy’s life. However, because the boy’s diagnosis was made by a private operator, the NHS board will not pay for the medication that he needs.
I wrote to the health board and the Scottish Government about that. My office chased up a response in advance of today’s debate, as I had not had one. While Willie Rennie was on his feet—less than four minutes ago—the NHS board came back to me to say that it will meet the family to discuss the issue. It should not have taken MSPs threatening to raise the issue in Parliament, raising it with ministers and writing to the health board to get the response that this family and this young boy need and to ensure that he gets the support that is so clearly needed.
What I want to see from today’s debate is consensus across the parties that we all accept that there is a problem; the SNP can show that by accepting the motion and the criticism within it. However, as others have said, we also need action. We cannot come back here in a few months or a few years’ time and say the same things and not deliver. It is over to the Government now to take the feeling in the chamber today and from across the political parties and finally get something done to deliver for young people and families across Scotland.
15:56
I welcome this debate on a very important issue for my constituents and for people across the country. There is no doubt that the number of ASN cases is rising, and that is very much reflected in my own case load. People are coming to my surgeries regularly now to seek advice and assistance, particularly when placing requests for specialist provision are being denied.
There has been a rapid increase in the number of such cases that my office and I have been dealing with this year, which far exceeds that of the years before the pandemic. Parents and children are being left frustrated and worried, and many are turning to the First-tier Tribunal once all avenues with the council have been explored.
I visit schools in my constituency every Monday, and I can testify to the fantastic work that our dedicated teaching staff and talented pupils are involved in. However, in almost all schools, I hear that the number of young people who need additional support is rising, and that is putting extra pressure on the schools.
There is no doubt that local authorities—it is North Lanarkshire Council in this instance—are under pressure in that regard. Of course, it does not help that they have often taken decisions to cut key resources, such as classroom assistants, as has been done in my local authority area.
However, I know that the council is also trying to find other solutions. For example, on Monday, I visited Shawhead primary school in Coatbridge, where I was informed that, from next term, the school would be used as a new enhanced mainstream provision with capacity for 10 children who have been denied ASN placements. That will involve additional staff and resources at the school. I very much welcome that step, and I am keen to find out how that exciting policy develops.
There is no doubt that the Scottish Government has supported local authorities to deliver in this area, with more than £1 billion spent on additional support for learning in 2023-24. However, we need to think more radically. We have a solution right in front of us that can help to tackle the rising incidence of additional needs, as well as behavioural difficulties, and to close the attainment gap. The cabinet secretary will know what I am going to say—it will be of no surprise to her. I believe that the introduction of a play-based kindergarten stage could be that very solution.
For several years, I have advocated the introduction of a kindergarten stage for Scotland. Almost a year ago, I brought a members’ business debate to the chamber on fostering a discussion on a kindergarten stage. The debate was engaging, with positive feedback on the idea from members across the parties. As I said in that debate, the UK is a complete outlier when we look at when our children start school, with our primary pupils starting between two and three years earlier than many of their European counterparts.
Kindergarten would give us the opportunity to allow children to flourish physically, mentally and socially. I understand that the introduction of a kindergarten stage will not necessarily solve all the factors behind pupils’ requirements for additional support needs. However, I firmly believe that taking that step will benefit pupils immensely and might address some developmental issues that can occur with our children. We currently have a system whereby children are expected to make a jarring transition from a nursery environment to a school environment while they are still between critical developmental milestones.
I could say so much more on the issue and talk about how the evidence points to a kindergarten stage reducing the attainment gap and behavioural difficulties. However, time is very tight in this debate, so I will end by urging the cabinet secretary to please explore the issue further, especially ahead of developing manifestos for 2026. A kindergarten phase will not solve all the issues in our education system overnight, and work must be done to help children who are struggling right now. However, the introduction of a well-designed kindergarten phase to at least the age of six, and possibly to the age of seven, will reap huge benefits in five to 10 years’ time. It could be truly game changing.
It is time for the Government and the Parliament to be bold and to come together and deliver the system that lets children be children, continues to support parents and carers and finally puts an end to the current Victorian-based model of children starting formal school at the age of four or five. If we are committed to such a positive change, in only five to 10 years’ time, debates such as this could be a thing of the past.
16:00
When I entered the Parliament in 2007, the Scottish Government introduced the policy of getting it right for every child—GIRFEC. It was seen as yet another acronym in the great usual clutter of educational jargon, but that policy actually mattered because it was—or it should have mattered, because it should have been—the scaffold of support for every single child across Scotland.
I contend that any decent teacher or education professional should have GIRFEC in their DNA. It should not take a Government to tell us why it matters. However, as time has progressed, many teachers and parents have told us that the implementation of GIRFEC is being undermined by several key aspects of education, most especially in relation to ASN.
As others have said, the recent evidence about the extent of the increase in the number of ASN pupils is clear and so too is the evidence about the accompanying concerns among teachers and parents and among pupils. We should not forget that part of the reason for the increase is better diagnosis—that is a good thing—but we should be clear about the increasing complexities that schools face as they seek to provide the best education for every child, no matter who he or she may be.
Part of the issue is about the interpretation of the principles of equity and mainstreaming, which are all well and good in theory but which are much more difficult in practice. I will be clear about the difference between equality in education and equity—equality is about offering exactly the same education to all pupils, but equity is different. Equity is about fairness and justice, but it also involves recognising that we do not all start from the same place. The principle of equity is so important when it comes to education, and it articulates perfectly the principle of GIRFEC.
GIRFEC is about ensuring that all pupils have the opportunity to fulfil their full potential. It should underpin all debates about ASN provision. It is also the principle that underpins my member’s bill on residential outdoor education.
From the principle of equity, we can examine the principle of mainstreaming. We can all agree that, in theory, mainstreaming is in line with several of the great traditions of Scottish education. However, in practice, especially now, it is much harder to justify saying that it is in line with GIRFEC. We know only too well that there is an increasing number of pupils for whom being in a mainstream classroom is not in their best educational interests. Parents, teachers and union representatives tell us that. I worry greatly that some children end up being placed in mainstream classes by local authorities for financial, rather than educational, reasons.
There is an important debate to be had about what we can and cannot achieve through mainstreaming. Added to that is the question whether specialist care can always be provided in every local authority—or without the help of the independent sector, where many schools have a long tradition of providing additional support for learning. I say gently to the Labour Party that another reason why the assault of VAT on the independent sector is so misguided is that some families with important additional support needs have been forced to leave that sector.
Many teachers, parents and, indeed, pupils rightly raise that the overstretch in mainstreaming often means that pupils with additional support needs get labelled as badly behaved. As Willie Rennie said, that is sometimes true, but it is more often not true—they are not the same thing, which we should note when considering the best interests of every child.
Last week, I was grateful that the Education, Children and Young People Committee supported one of my amendments to the Education (Scotland) Bill, which was designed to further broaden the inspection process in all our schools. Such an approach has to happen for additional support for learning, too. It is time that we properly did something about GIRFEC and supporting every child in the context of additional support for learning.
16:05
Let me say at the very start that an evaluation of the inclusion of mainstreaming two decades after the enactment of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is one thing, but we should not support going back to the old systems of segregation, removal and exclusion.
The presumption of mainstreaming is, in my view, correct. Equality, diversity and the comprehensive principle are correct, but there are some big questions. Over the past two decades, there has been an eightfold increase in the number of children and young people who need additional support for learning—some of it long term, some of it short term—and the need is not evenly spread. Children in our most-deprived areas are twice as likely to need additional support for learning as children who live in the least-deprived areas. However, as the Auditor General warned the Parliament when he gave evidence in March, that is not reflected in how councils are funded for their education service. Neither is it reflected in education planning, teacher training or class sizes.
We also learned that good-quality data does not exist. There are gaps and inconsistencies to such an extent, in fact, that Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission could not undertake a full performance audit of additional support for learning in Scotland, as they originally intended, because the data was non-existent, inconsistent or unreliable. Yoshiko Gibo, a senior auditor, also told us that the data that is currently available was designed as a way of monitoring whether the ASL legislation had been put in place as intended, not as a way of understanding children’s support needs.
When the Scottish Government’s director general for education and justice gave evidence to the Public Audit Committee just seven days ago, he told us about the international experience. He told us that Scotland spends more per pupil than any other part of the UK and has lower pupil teacher ratios, but those are inputs, not outcomes. We were even told that there is not a perfect correlation between deprivation and additional support needs, because
“Orkney has high levels of ASN and low deprivation.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 7 May 2024; c 20.]
That misrepresents and distorts the overwhelming evidence that a link between poverty and inequality and learning is both irrefutable and causal, and it negates everything that the Scottish Government has told the people and the Parliament for years about closing the educational attainment gap.
We have legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but we have enduring moral obligations, too. We need to get this right, because children are only five once, only eight once, only 11 once and only 15 once. It is no good saying, “We’ll carry out reviews and sort this out over the next five years.” We need a greater sense of urgency and an end to Scottish Government complacency. Otherwise, for these children and young people, it may be too late. We need to get it right for every child, but we also need to get it right for every child at the first time of asking.
16:09
I really welcome this debate, and I thank colleagues across the chamber for bringing attention to such an important issue. Additional support for learning and the implementation of mainstreaming are a vital issue that we should keep front and centre. I have had conversations with the Government, the cabinet secretary and the minister, and I believe that it is a conversation that they do not shy away from.
I will speak specifically about neurodivergence. In my time as a councillor and, now, as an MSP, it has been the number 1 issue that constituents have raised with me. Week in, week out, families have contacted me, exhausted and frustrated and often feeling powerless. That is not just because of the day-to-day challenges of parenting neurodivergent children, but because they are constantly having to fight to be understood. It is that understanding that I really want to focus on.
Families need to be listened to and they need to be able to access support systems, which are there but are often gatekept by people who do not understand. I have been open about my lived experience. I could stand here and say that I have a child who waited about eight years for an ADHD diagnosis, but that time was not spent on a waiting list, and that is what we need to be specific about. It was eight years of me asking teachers to see what I saw in my child, but they did not, so that diagnostic pathway was blocked and gatekept several times. When they finally—after I begged them—got him on the diagnostic pathway, it took a matter of months and he was helped and supported. I was told that his was probably one of the strongest-presenting ADHD cases they had seen, so what was the issue? The issue was not that the waiting list was eight years long; the issue was that the people on the ground who could give my child access to that pathway did not understand how neurodivergence could present.
I understand that it is not financially viable to offer one-to-one support to every single neurodivergent child, and I agree that trauma-informed practice is really important, but understanding is needed. Neurodivergent children have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and people can often add negative connotations to that and say that they come across as obstinate, which can be time consuming in some busy classrooms. However, that is where understanding matters, and those qualities can actually be nurtured and become great transferable skills in the real world—she says, standing here with a strong sense of social justice.
I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s significant investment in ASL provision. I know that it has been listening and that it is working hard to find solutions, but money and policy alone are not enough. Those who are delivering the services on the ground must have an understanding of how neurodivergence presents and what these children need. I have had a child placed on a reduced timetable—I get it. I have been there when the anxiety kicks in when the phone rings, and I have been unable to work in traditional ways for many years because I have had to go to the school to ask my child to climb down from the shed after he has emptied all the gym equipment out. I get it.
However, too often, the relationship between parents and schools can become adversarial. We need to replace that tension with trust and with honest and open communication. We must stop the blame game for everyone and come up with constructive solutions to move forward and see what is best for everyone inside and outside the classroom.
I will have to skip quite a bit of my speech, but I want to give a shout-out to Banff academy, which has an excellent example of a really small action making a big impact. I went to the school and wondered why it was so calm and peaceful—
Ms Adam, you are over your time.
My apologies, Presiding Officer.
Please bring your remarks to a close.
The academy does not have a school bell, which has made a massive impact. There is no jarring noise and no sudden movement, and it helps people to take responsibility—
Ms Adam—
—for their timekeeping—she said, ironically.
Ms Adam, your time is over.
We move to closing speeches. I call Ross Greer to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. You have up to four minutes.
16:14
In opening, the minister mentioned staffing and, specifically, issues around the number of support staff in schools. That is worth exploring further, because it also connects to Richard Leonard’s point about the difficulties that Audit Scotland faced when it tried to accurately ascertain the state of play with ASN support in our schools.
One of the issues in relation to support staff is that, starting in around 2019, Government statisticians could no longer distinguish between ASN support staff and classroom or general pupil support assistants. From that point onwards, they began to group those two categories together in the school staff census. When the Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee brought the statisticians in to explain that decision, they simply said that, at a local level, the lines had been blurred so much that there was no meaningful distinction. However, that decision masked the almost complete disappearance of dedicated ASN support staff from our schools.
That is why, when my party was in Government, we worked together with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to develop policy proposals for a system of accreditation and registration for ASN support staff—I pushed for that.
By no means do I mean this as a sign of disrespect, but it is often the least qualified and least well-paid members of school staff who are expected to provide the most complex and, often, the most intimate personal support to pupils. That is wrong for both the pupil and the member of staff who is expected to do that for far too little pay and without adequate training and support.
It is not only support staff. We have seen a significant reduction in ASN teacher numbers relative to the number of pupils—in fact, there has been no increase in the number of ASN teachers in our schools, even in absolute terms. The Government made an effort a few years ago to promote ASN teaching through the lead teacher model, but I think that we are at the point at which we can all acknowledge that that did not work—indeed, there was no clear incentive for a teacher to take that course.
We must give teachers the opportunity to move into ASN specialist teaching as a point of career progression, and the only way that we can encourage more teachers into ASN teaching is by making it a promoted post. We constantly hear from teachers that they still want to work with children and young people and that they want the opportunity of career progression without moving into a management position. Making ASN teaching a promoted post would be an obvious way to support that. Although it would require additional resources because promoted posts have higher salaries attached to them, we must recognise the need to have specialist staff in our schools among both teaching and support staff.
One of the first constituents to whom I spoke after I was first elected in 2016 was a deaf 15-year-old young woman, who was in high school. She told me that, on her first day of high school, she had been assigned a member of staff for one-on-one support. She thought that that was fantastic—her anxiety went down at the thought that that dedicated support would be there—until that member of staff said to her that they had only ever worked with children who had autism but that they were sure that, between the two of them, they would be able to work out how to provide the right support for her. That was a failure not only for the young woman but for the member of staff, who had not been adequately supported to do their job—the job that they had been assigned to. Constituents have brought plenty of other examples to me since.
I want to address definition issues. Richard Leonard made an important point. Quite rightly, we have a very broad definition of additional support needs, and there is a whole range of advantages to that. However, when it is at the point where 40 per cent of all children have ASN, and everything from being gifted to being a permanent wheelchair user is an ASN, the grouping of a wide range of issues under one category masks those issues and makes it hard to identify the right kind of support. Although I think that we should keep that definition, we need better disaggregation of the data.
Although there are serious resource implications for getting this right, we could make policy and legislative changes right now with no cost, which would at least make some initial progress while we resolve the more difficult issues of resources. Our children deserve that. It is a crisis in our schools, and those changes need to be delivered now. I hope that the cabinet secretary can commit this afternoon to taking at least some actions.
16:18
I think that the tension around time for some speeches in the debate shows the importance of the matter and what other areas we should, as a Parliament, have the opportunity to explore.
I would like to start at the end, with Ross Greer’s comments about the lead teacher programme—previously, we had the chartered teacher programme. We seem unable to celebrate experienced, qualified and wise teachers staying in the classroom—we want to yank them out and place them in management roles with human resource, finance and other obligations, none of which are suited to their training. Doing that steals from our young people some of the best opportunities with which they could be gifted: time with a teacher—a pedagogue—who can be with them and meet them where they are. That very much speaks to the ASN situation in which we find ourselves.
To pick up on Karen Adam’s slightly curtailed speech and the shout-out that I think that she was about to make, I note that these young people bring special gifts. They have enormous strengths that other children do not have. They have an ability to coalesce as a group and be empathetic to one another’s needs and celebrate one another’s strengths. Every person—not just children—should have the opportunity to do that. However, in our education system—to make a defence of mainstreaming—that opportunity can exist only if we can facilitate mainstreaming for as many of our children as that will work for. As we have heard, that requires resources.
I go back to Maree Todd’s opening speech. I am grateful for the number of interventions that she took. It is interesting that the Government acknowledged that support staff numbers are currently at the second highest level on record, which relates to Ross Greer’s comment about how that is measured. Even at the second highest level, the number of staff is still insufficient for the very significant number of ASN-identified children that there are.
A challenge on diagnosis has been raised in a number of debates, particularly with regard to autistic children and alternative pathways, which are constantly raised. I thank the National Autistic Society Scotland for its briefing on the debate. We often conflate the need for a diagnosis from a medical point of view with the requirement that children display elements that require additional support—but not for there to be a diagnosis—to trigger the support that occurs in our education system. We drift between those ideas in the Parliament. I do not think that we do that deliberately, but the failure to differentiate between the two ideas leads to the problems that we have noted with regard to co-ordinated care plans, for which there are requirements for external inputs.
We fail to understand the importance to parents of a diagnosis, and the importance that a diagnosis has for children in enabling them to understand their identity and strengths and the challenges that they might face. There has been a call to be careful with the language that we use. We must do that, because that challenge does not exist only in the chamber; it rolls outwards. There are parents who feel that their young person has been removed from a list that would have resulted in a diagnosis and they do not know how to address that.
One of the requests of the National Autistic Society is that the Scottish Government clarifies whether it will implement a nationwide system for accessing autism and ADHD diagnoses and, if so, how. Will the cabinet secretary address that when summing up? What will that system look like? I echo the point that there are gatekeepers to some of the existing pathways and people may not know how to access them.
I recognise that time is short. This has been a fascinating debate and it is one that we should return to in Government debating time so that we can discuss solutions that we have been shown today.
16:23
I have been really impressed by the thoughtful and powerful contributions that we have heard from across the chamber. I thank Miles Briggs for raising the topic, which, as he will know, is constantly raised in my mailbag and during my visits to schools. I was in a school this morning, meeting with staff and speaking to young people about their experiences in school. I put on record my thanks to Molly, who I played shops with, and to Ellis, who asked me for more playtime. There was also an ask from some of the primary school kids for more sharing.
It was a heartening visit and it was all about the pupil equity fund and the difference that it has made in our schools. That funding is providing extra money to Scotland’s headteachers to help them pay for investments in extra staff, as we have heard from members across the chamber today. We know that it is funding the employment of around 3,000 extra staff in our schools.
I was struck that the motion calls for another review. I see one of Mr Briggs’s colleagues nodding. I am sure that, in previous debates brought to the Parliament by the Conservatives, I was instructed by her that the time for reviews is now over. However, I accept the gravity of the challenge. It is important that, as a Parliament, we come together to recognise what more needs to be done on behalf of Scotland’s children and young people.
To respond to the points than Willie Rennie made, it is important that there is a collective understanding of what the scope of such a review should be. There have been different ideas about that, such as on the role of local government, which I note is not expressly mentioned in the motion, although Mr Briggs mentioned it. I would want COSLA to be at the table for any engagement on the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy raised on workforce planning, for example.
I also heard the points that Karen Adam made about Banff academy; I have experienced the no-bell school that she mentioned, and if I had stayed in the north-east, I would have gone to Banff academy. Banff academy’s approach to not having a school bell has had a transformative impact on the young people—particularly those with an identified additional support need—and the staff in that school.
I want to mention comments from colleagues, but I am conscious that time is tight. Liz Smith made a helpful contribution. She talked about the importance of GIRFEC and its interaction with our approach to ASN in our schools. As Stephen Kerr, I think, pointed out in relation to my commentary on Friday at the SSTA congress, when the 2004 act came into force, far fewer children had an identified additional support need. Today, in most schools, the number is at about 40 per cent. In some schools that I visit, it is more than 50 per cent. The landscape has fundamentally changed since that legislation was introduced and in relation to how it is now being enacted. That plays to the points in the Labour Party amendment about the 2004 act’s interaction with delivery at the local level, on which I do not think that we heard disagreement.
More broadly, there was commentary on data. I am sure that colleagues will have seen the programme for government commitment to a data summit. On the consistency of data, we have highlighted that we have a broad approach to gathering data on additional support needs, which includes, for example, the needs of children who have suffered childhood bereavement and those of high-achieving children. A lot of different additional support needs are covered.
Does the data record how many parents have received a private diagnosis for their child? I have received an email from a GP practice saying that, unfortunately, shared care prescribing agreements have been established only between NHS primary care and NHS secondary care. On the back of the debate, will the Government look at how such agreements can be established for people who have had a private diagnosis for their child and want that shared care?
I am happy to commit to looking at that. Private diagnosis might be an issue that local authorities gather data on; we in the Scottish Government would not do so, given that the statutory responsibility falls on local government. I am more than happy to engage with Miles Briggs on that.
Miles Briggs made substantial points about teachers facing challenging pressures. Although Willie Rennie was right to say that the pandemic is not the causal factor, I think that it has compounded some of the challenges in our schools. In education debates, we speak regularly about the wider challenges—in attendance, behaviour and attainment—and Mr Rennie was right not to divorce them from issues that relate to additional support needs. I wonder whether the Opposition might reflect on the scope of the review in totality, so that we do not narrow our focus too much on additional support needs and are mindful of those wider challenges across our school estate, post-pandemic.
Presiding Officer, I am very mindful of the time, and I will move on shortly.
In closing, I want to make a number of points about the progress that there has been in recent years for our children who have identified support needs. The attainment gap is closing, which is certainly welcome news. We also see that success is measured in different ways for children who have an identified support need.
The point was powerfully conveyed by Richard Leonard that there is strong support for the position on mainstreaming from all our trade unions, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and, more recently, the national discussion on education, which reported in 2023 that mainstreaming is a strength of Scotland’s education system. However, I accept the challenges that we have heard from Opposition members today. To that end, I propose that, at the earliest possible opportunity, we engage in a round table, along with local government and COSLA, to talk about what more might be done to support additional support needs in our schools.
I mentioned some of the investment that we have made through the pupil equity fund—
Cabinet secretary, you will need to conclude.
It is also worthwhile putting on record the funding that we have provided—more than £1 billion in the past financial year alone—for additional support needs.
The debate has been helpful, and I am more than happy to engage with Opposition members on the next steps in supporting our holistic approach to Scottish education.
I call Roz McCall to wind up the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Ms McCall, you have up to six minutes.
16:29
I am delighted to close this Scottish Conservative business debate, especially as the issue is so important.
On the cabinet secretary’s final point, which was about another review, our options to get action, as an Opposition party, are slightly limited, so a review it happens to be. However, I welcome her offer of a round table and action on the issue. We will look forward to that.
We are debating education during Conservative party business time again, which proves that our priorities are the same as those of any parent, grandparent or carer who wants a system that works for their child, not against them; who wants a constructive education model that will empower their child to achieve, not doom them to fail; and who wants a support process that understands the needs of their particular child, not a tick-box exercise that works for a limited few.
The statistics highlight the scale of the issue of additional support for learning in our schools. As of 2024, the figures show that 284,448 pupils had an additional support need, which, as has been said, is 40.5 per cent of all pupils. The number has increased markedly since 2010, and there continue to be year-on-year increases. Yes, we can applaud the continued improvements in recording and identifying ASN and the introduction of additional need types, but if we do not put the correct processes in place all of that recording and identifying is for naught.
Ninety-three per cent of the almost 285,000 pupils spent all their time in mainstream classes. If we are going to have a presumption of mainstreaming in Scotland, it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to ensure adequate staffing levels, processes, funding and support for pupils and teachers alike. Unfortunately, that is not happening.
I will take a moment to draw attention to some of the contributions to the debate. In response to Richard Leonard and Ross Greer, I note that a review of support for the presumption of mainstreaming does not suggest a return to the old ways. We need to have a system that is working, and a review is certainly a way to achieve that.
Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted that the system can work—she is testament to that herself—and that that comes from having strong staff and strong teachers, which is so important.
Willie Rennie highlighted the shift from having a presumption of mainstreaming to more of a “compulsion of mainstreaming”. That is a very interesting phrase, and it is a model that does not work for every child. That was also highlighted by my colleague Liz Smith, who said that although the policy was based on getting it right for every child, we are not doing that.
Karen Adam made an exceptionally strong contribution to the debate. However, I come back to the point that resources and training in our education processes are very important in ensuring that we get the pathways right.
In the motion, Miles Briggs highlighted the importance of having our local authorities and COSLA included in the discussion. We need a call to action, and we need clear timescales.
Fulton MacGregor highlighted kindergarten, and he will not get an argument from me on that. That our children are ready to learn is vital, and that focus in early years education is fundamental.
It is more important than ever that we review ASN in our schools. Children present as having a need for additional support if they have learning difficulties such as dyslexia, dyscalculia or dyspraxia. Additional support is also required if a young person has a mental health issue such as anxiety or depression. Children might need learning support because they are autistic or because they have motor or sensory impairments. As Ross Greer mentioned, that is a massive range, and the range of support needed in our mainstream classrooms is vast.
The Audit Scotland report states:
“the Scottish Government has not planned effectively for the potential impact of this inclusive approach to ASL. It is not specifically reflected in funding formulas for education and education planning, such as training for teachers and support staff, class sizes and the design of school buildings.”
It goes on to state:
“From existing data, it is not possible to conclude whether levels of funding, staffing levels and mix are appropriate to meet current needs. Resourcing decisions to deliver agreed outcomes need to be based on a clearer understanding of pupils’ additional support needs.”
Surely, if the range of needs is broad and diverse, the training, funding and understanding must be, too.
I support the request for the current system of ASN provision to be reviewed to ensure that we are providing adequate support for our young people and halting the inequality that is failing too many Scots.