Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Official Report 1084KB pdf

---

Qualifications and Assessment

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-12304, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on the recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment.

15:51  

I am pleased to open this important debate on the recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. On Monday, I met teaching professional associations to discuss qualifications reform. I am grateful for their input thus far, and I look forward to continuing to learn from their members’ expertise. Last week, I met Opposition spokespeople, and I very much hope that, today, we will be able to identify some areas of consensus on school reform.

The Government will submit a formal response to the independent review in the coming weeks, and it is important that today’s debate informs that process. In some areas covered by the independent review’s report, things are moving at pace, but we need to be mindful of the current context that our teachers and young people face, as Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment makes clear. She also rightly points out the importance of engaging with parents and young people. To that end, I was grateful for the opportunity to engage on the matter with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland yesterday.

The context has changed since the pandemic started. Fully engaging with the teaching profession on what comes next will be a guiding principle for me, as cabinet secretary. That is why I took the decision last year to pause legislative changes to the Scottish Qualifications Authority and Education Scotland. I did so because of my direct engagement with the profession—in particular, I reflected on what I heard from Scotland’s secondary school teachers.

I commissioned further survey evidence to strengthen teacher voice in the reform process, and I thank the thousands of teachers who contributed. The results of the survey were published yesterday. The online survey response represents the views of more than 9,000 educational professionals, the majority of whom are teachers. Overall, the survey demonstrates that there is no clear and settled view among Scotland’s teachers. Almost all respondents wish to see some change to qualifications and assessment but, although some people are very supportive of the proposals, others favour a more incremental approach.

My view is that the survey succinctly captures the changing context in our classrooms following Covid. Indeed, a number of factors—including additional support needs, attendance, behaviour and relationships, and teacher workload, as highlighted in Labour’s amendment—are compounding the challenge in our classrooms every day. As cabinet secretary, I need to put in place a realistic programme of reform that takes into account the capacity of the system and the budget within which we must operate.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that all the factors that she has set out are reasons for introducing reform rather than delaying it?

The context that the member has addressed is important. However, as she knows, I built in an additional year, which has been important in allowing us to better capture teacher voice in the reform process. The current system is dealing with a number of different pressures. Yes, reform offers us opportunities, but we need to be mindful of the practicalities and how things will play out. I will talk about that later, particularly in relation to continuous assessment. How reform to the curriculum, qualifications and assessment is advanced in that context requires to be understood, although I think that there is consensus in the Parliament that change must come.

Crucially, reform must be interwoven with the driving of educational improvements. In its most recent report, the International Council of Education Advisers reminded us of that, stating that

“Clear beneficial impact on the learning and experience of the young people and their teachers should be the acid test of any proposals.”

I firmly agree.

I thank Professor Louise Hayward and her review group for the substantial report and the recommendations on senior phase qualifications. Some, although not all, are asking for significant change. The independent review made 26 wide-ranging recommendations and challenges us to look at our senior phase qualifications differently.

Central to the proposed new approach could be the creation of a Scottish diploma of achievement, comprising three elements. The first is programmes of learning—subjects in today’s parlance. The review recommends that we change the balance of assessment, moving away from overreliance on high-stakes exams; increase the use of digital assessment; and remove completely national 5 exams, which are usually taken in S4.

The second element is project-based learning, which would be a formal opportunity to build skills and put knowledge into practice through a project that is based on interdisciplinary learning. The third element is a personal pathway, which would be an opportunity for young people to personalise their diploma by including a range of achievements that reflect their interests.

Taking those elements in their totality, the move to a Scottish diploma would represent a radical departure from our current qualifications offering. Any change to our qualifications system requires to be managed carefully. Indeed, having been a teacher when the curriculum for excellence was introduced, I know that there are lessons for the Government to learn on how we can work better to support the profession on qualifications reform.

As I announced to Parliament in December, a curriculum improvement cycle has already begun, with maths being the first area to be updated. Curriculum improvement in maths will involve working with the profession to better align the broad general education and senior phases to ensure smoother progression. I am pleased that we will shortly appoint a maths specialist to lead on that work nationally. Progression between the BGE and senior phases should be seamless, but we know that that is not always the case.

The new qualifications body will consider the content of qualifications to ensure progression as part of the curriculum improvement cycle, but the other change that is needed relates to rebalancing the assessment methods, as recommended by Professor Hayward. Ideally, we would do both at the same time, but that will not always be possible if we are going to make progress at pace.

Not every qualification has to look the same in the future. Coursework requirements were reintroduced this academic year, following the removal of modifications that were put in place during the pandemic. Although that was welcomed by some young people and teachers for some subjects, it has not been welcomed by all. Therefore, I asked the SQA to work with the teaching profession as part of its evaluation of 2024 to consider the experience of a return to full course assessment. That might inform future potential changes that do not have to wait for substantive qualifications reform.

I have also had an assurance from the SQA chief examiner that it will consider the impact of the reintroduction of coursework in its approach to grading this year, which is right and proper. That nuance is required with regard to external assessment weighting. I am firmly of the view that some subject areas would be better served by practical assessment. How that might be administered in every subject area will involve engagement with subject specialists in our schools but, in the future, there should not necessarily be a requirement for a final exam for every single course.

There are potential quick wins, on which I am keen to see the new qualifications agency move at pace, working with the teaching profession. That partnership between our national bodies, local government, teachers and professional associations will be critical to implementing reform. As Mr Kerr’s amendment notes, this cannot just be about our schools.

The cabinet secretary postulates a fascinating idea. With regard to the maths specialist, we are looking at implementation not in this academic year and, possibly, not even in the next academic year. Does she have a timetable in mind for the amendments to the different assessment approaches?

There are two elements to that, the first of which is curriculum improvement. The curriculum improvement that I announced in December will have a maths specialist lead. That process will involve working with the teaching profession and it will report later this year. We will update the curriculum in maths this year, followed by the English curriculum. We also need to engage with the new qualifications agency, which I hope to legislate for in the coming months. Finally, the Government will submit its formal response to Professor Hayward’s recommendations, setting out the timelines that the member refers to. That is hugely important.

However, the point that I was making is that there are a number of actions that we can take in the here and now to update the content of our courses. It is important that teachers and our young people see progress to that end.

We like tests in Scotland. As Professor Gordon Stobart observed,

“In comparative terms, Scottish upper-secondary school students are more frequently examined than those in other jurisdictions”.

We should contrast the school exams approach with that adopted by our universities, for example, many of which have moved to a much more flexible approach to continuous assessment post-pandemic. Why not our schools? Our teachers would say—rightly so—that it is because of the requirements that are stipulated by the SQA at the current time. The role of the new qualifications body will therefore have to be central to a move away from a focus on examinations-heavy qualifications towards more continuous assessment. How that requirement is implemented needs the Government to learn lessons from the introduction of the national qualifications.

When will the new qualifications body be up and running? Which cohort of pupils will take the exams that it will set?

I gave some of that information when I responded to the previous intervention from Pam Duncan-Glancy’s colleague. I will legislate for the creation of the new qualifications body in the coming weeks, and we expect it to be operational from 2025.

There were previously requirements associated with the original approach to unit assessment, which accompanied the introduction of the current national qualifications. That is really important—it is the bread and butter of what teachers do every day. However, in my opinion, those standards were accompanied by overly bureaucratic standards that required to be overcome by every pupil for every unit, and were for every teacher to input to the SQA.

How we administer continuous assessment matters. We do not want a rerun of those box-ticking or overly administrative approaches, which add to teacher workload and do nothing to improve outcomes for children and young people. Continuous assessment can support good progression. We know that there are challenges between nat 4 and nat 5, and particularly in relation to the jump on to higher in certain subjects. Getting that right through curriculum improvement will support Scotland’s teachers and improve outcomes for Scotland’s young people.

The best part of being education secretary is undoubtedly having the opportunity to visit Scotland’s schools. In my engagement with our secondaries, I am always struck by the extensive range of qualifications that are now on offer. For many, that has been a welcome move that has opened up non-traditional pathways. Professor Hayward’s second substantive recommendation in relation to the number of qualifications that we have in our schools is about a rationalisation of that offer. My view is that a degree of rationalisation is needed to support clearer pathways for our young people and for the teachers who are working hard to support them. In that respect, I am supportive of the review’s proposal to rationalise the existing range of courses.

I am conscious of the time. I have not yet had an opportunity to talk about the opportunities that are presented by project-based learning or, more broadly, about how we can accredit the personal pathway element. I look forward to hearing views from members on those other two elements that would accompany any move to a Scottish diploma.

Undoubtedly, change must be carefully planned. Many teachers are now asking questions about the practicalities of how that might work in our classrooms. It was right and proper that we paused legislative reform last year to build in the opportunity for our teachers to fully engage with the report’s proposals—because, without them, reform cannot work.

I fully agree with Liam Kerr, who said earlier this month:

“it is the responsibility of the Parliament to address those challenges by setting them out clearly and trying to work in a cross-party way to find the solutions”—[Official Report, 6 February 2024; c 74.]

That is what I am trying to do in respect of the recommendations on the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues across the chamber in advance of the formal Scottish Government response.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes It’s Our Future, the final report of the Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment; notes the report’s recommendations, including proposals to change the balance in assessment methods in the Senior Phase; acknowledges the substantial engagement from teachers on the Review’s recommendations since publication; agrees that it is crucial that the Scottish Government ensures a fair and credible qualifications and assessment system that enhances learning and teaching and creates improved outcomes for young people; reaffirms the need to make significant progress in the reform of the qualifications and assessment landscape in this parliamentary session, with initial changes starting in 2024; agrees that these reforms must be taken forward with young people and teachers, with changes clearly understood by parents, carers, employers and further and higher education institutions; recognises that the process of education reform must not solely be about qualifications and structures, but also about continuously improving Scotland’s 3-18 curriculum framework to ensure seamless progression and to support pupils and teachers in classrooms, and agrees that trusted professionals working in Scotland’s schools must be provided with the necessary support to enable the adoption of any proposed new approaches to assessment.

16:03  

I welcome this debate on what has become known colloquially as the Hayward review.

Arguably—I think that Ross Greer will pick up on this point later—we should have more time on this, so that the overview that the cabinet secretary has given, and the one that I will give, could be picked up on in more depth as we go through the afternoon.

To quote the commission on school reform:

“Since the pandemic a veritable plethora of reports on education have been published”.

There has been a lot of reviewing and report writing but very little actual reforming. I looked into that and discovered that, since the last election, there have been about seven reviews or reports in this space, five of which alone contain more than 130 recommendations. There have been 15 ministerial statements and 38 Scottish Government groups, which have met more than 300 times, and more than 300,000 words have been written.

It is now eight months since the publication of the Hayward report, nine months since the publication of “All Learners in Scotland Matter: The National Discussion on Education” and Withers’s “Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation” and nearly two years since the Muir report. That matters because, just last Monday, we read of warnings that the prolonged instability that is being caused by the stalled reform programme was damaging staff morale and the delivery of services for teachers and pupils.

The danger that I worry about is that, the further we move from the 2021 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of curriculum for excellence and the pandemic, the greater the likelihood of reform stalling. Despite the barrage of reports and recommendations and the proposals that the cabinet secretary outlined in her speech and, for example, the Minister for Higher and Further Education outlined in a useful letter on Withers yesterday, I do not see any overarching consideration that ensures that duplications—or, perhaps, the contradictions—in the reports are addressed. Neither do I see that an overall strategy is in place to ask what resources might be needed, particularly given the cabinet secretary’s comments on the various pressures that need to be addressed and will require resources.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that quick wins are good, but what is in place to ensure that such quick wins do not inadvertently prejudice other areas? As Dr Brown of the Royal Society of Edinburgh warns, we need to ensure that we learn from any mistakes that have been made in the past. My overall concern is that, absent all that I have mentioned, any reforms might not take teachers, staff and professionals along with them.

Although the Hayward recommendations have received strong backing, some of the results of the consultation that were published yesterday are sobering. As Andrea Bradley of the Educational Institute of Scotland demanded, it is imperative that the people who implement any reforms are listened to very carefully. Those results, which come from around 9,300 people, tell us that there is far from universal agreement with the Hayward recommendations. In particular, more than half of respondents disagreed with the recommendation to do away with external exams below higher level, such that assessment would be internal only.

Those respondents and a significant number of commentators raised concerns about the proposal and suggested that removal could lead to pupils struggling with the transition to highers and beyond. I recall Mike Corbett of the NASUWT last summer warning that it risks making exams in secondary 6 incredibly high stakes in a context where there has been no meaningful practice. Questions have also been raised about standardisation and consistency of assessment, quality assurance, verification of what assessments count and how they might be cross-marked, and, of course, the perception, understanding and tolerance of employers.

The point about practice was made by Professor Lindsay Paterson last year, when he suggested that exams help to prepare pupils for progressing to further or higher education. That point was made to me by several providers. It is not only about the ability to set up new admissions procedures and the cost and time for them to implement them but about the ability of certain institutions to move away from traditional methods of consideration. I also worry about the workload implications for teachers, particularly in the context of class sizes remaining greater than is desirable, if they will have to take on an even greater burden of internal assessment.

That approach is part of the proposed Scottish diploma of achievement, which is intended to transform the senior phase. It consists of the three elements that the cabinet secretary set out in detail—the programmes of learning, the personal pathway and project learning.

A lot in the proposal is interesting, as the cabinet secretary set out, and we will no doubt hear more as the afternoon progresses. However, I have real concerns about the inadvertent but definite possibility that bringing in a Scottish diploma, with its inherent project learning and personal pathways that would be based on assessed coursework, could disadvantage pupils from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, given the fact that, for example, pupils from wealthier backgrounds will have greater access to extracurricular activities. Young people in rural settings, looked-after children, young carers and disabled pupils might be similarly disadvantaged. In a context in which there has been little meaningful progress in closing the attainment gap—which we all know remains stubbornly high—and in which the gaps in primary school writing and numeracy are higher than pre-pandemic levels, the last thing that we can do is risk exacerbating that problem.

I agree that simply putting the project learning on to an already unequal system will increase that inequality. I am interested in Mr Kerr’s perspective on the system that we have at the moment. The comparative data set that we have from 2020 and 2021, in which we did not have high-stakes end-of-term exams, showed a narrower attainment gap than the traditional exam model. There is clearly a level of inequality in the system as it stands, and I am interested in how he thinks we could reconcile that with a move towards more continuous assessment.

That is an interesting point. The key to that goes back to what I was talking about earlier: we really need to interrogate what is going on here. We need to interrogate the data, what happened several years ago and why we got the results that we did, and then interrogate the myriad reports on that to ensure that we are getting the real, in-depth and nuanced learnings from all of those so that we come up with the right conclusion. That is a valid point that is well made.

I regret that I do not have time to go off at a slight tangent and talk about the outstanding foundation apprenticeship model that is being delivered by Aberdeenshire Council. I wanted to do that because it demonstrates an awful lot of the things that are desired by the review, such as raising attainment and closing the attainment gap, developing the meta skills that we all want to see, employer engagement and rounded assessment and qualifications. I hope to take up the cabinet secretary’s offer, which I know she is sincere about, to work collaboratively on that and bring what Aberdeenshire Council is doing to the chamber.

In conclusion, the Hayward report is important and stimulating, but there are challenges to it. What we must see coming from the report, from today’s debate and from the sector’s responses in yesterday’s consultation report is real, meaningful action.

I move amendment S6M-12304.2, to insert at end:

“; believes that, given the concerns highlighted by teachers surrounding some aspects of the review, the implementation of any of its recommendations must be done in conjunction with teachers, parents, pupils and staff, with their voices leading change, and acknowledges that, despite considerable review of the education system, the Scottish Government is not progressing with the radical change that many suggest is needed to Scotland’s education system, which has suffered over the last 17 years.”

16:11  

I start by thanking Professor Louise Hayward and her team, and all the teachers, pupils, support staff and parents, for the work that they did on the report. They and we have eagerly awaited next steps, so I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has brought this debate.

However, in discussing qualifications and assessments, it is important that we view them as one piece of the jigsaw and recognise how they fit with the many reviews, consultations and surveys that have been carried out. Therefore, although they are missing from the Government motion, I welcome that the cabinet secretary mentioned them in her opening remarks.

The case for change is compelling. Right now, things are not working as they should for pupils, particularly for those who have additional support needs, for teachers and support staff burdened by heavy workloads, and for society, which is relying on today’s education system getting it right for the generation of children who will deliver the skills that we need to grow the economy of tomorrow.

A failure to implement commitments that could address some of the issues that we see today—increased non-contact time, reduced class sizes and support for children who have additional needs—has held back potential, caused a decline in pupil and parental engagement and driven people away from the teaching profession. The cabinet secretary is therefore right to recognise that things are difficult and that we need to take people with us and time to do that, but those are reasons to reform, not reasons to delay.

One of the most pressing examples of why reform is crucial can be seen and heard in the experience of children who have additional support needs. The scale of how badly they are being let down has been coming over starkly in our committee inquiry. It is not just about a lack of support; they are being done a disservice in the way that we attempt to measure their success, so we must change that. If we can get it right for them, we will and can get it right for every child.

For too long, we have fostered a narrative that the only way to be successful in education is to get high grades in academic assessment through performance in high-stakes exams. We need to change that, which is why the debate is important and reform is pressing. The course programme element, and then assessment, are perhaps the most recognisable as similar to what we have now, but they will need to come with significant reform.

We need a broadened curriculum with a focus on knowledge and skills to grow the economy for the future. We also need to pay significant attention to the recruitment and retention of school staff and give education institutions the ability to innovate and deliver parity of esteem. Partnerships between schools and colleges that allow pupils to take college-level courses in place of highers and national 5s in subjects that are not otherwise included in the school curriculum—for example, in engineering, catering or social care—should be supported and encouraged. By making those broader skills and courses available and, crucially, by valuing those course and colleges, we can enable more young people to broaden their opportunities.

Earlier, I made the point that we currently have quite a cluttered approach to qualifications in the school sector. Should some of the subjects to which the member refers always be delivered in school, or are there other places—such as colleges—where they might be better supported?

Those opportunities need to be available to children and young people, wherever they are. Some children and young people will flourish in those subjects in schools and some will require a different environment, including, for example, college. Provision needs to be tailored to the specific needs of the children and young people who are in our schools and our education system today.

The look that is being taken at the curriculum is important. Since its introduction, there has been a narrowing of the curriculum for excellence. The two-plus-two-plus-two structure, which is still prevalent, means that children are rushed to pick subjects in which they want to take a qualification as early as secondary 3, so that there is more time to teach them the relevant content, so that they can pass the high-stakes exam. That culture of teaching to the test stifles the ability to develop a deeper knowledge and understanding of the areas in which a child might excel or have an interest. It disengages pupils, it can limit their future choices and it should be reformed.

It is crucial that we allow pupils the room to study more subjects, but it is also crucial that we make the content fit for purpose and applicable in the modern world—for example, by clearly linking learning to future careers. An example of that is showing how maths can lead to a career in technology or gaming.

Reform needs to include a stronger focus on developing skills in problem solving, oracy and cross-subject work, so that young people head out to the world of work or further and higher education with the rounded skills that they will need. However, if we are to facilitate that broader learning, we will need to tackle staff workload, deliver increased non-contact time and address teacher shortages, including in computing, in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and in rural areas.

The way that we assess all that should be reformed, too. We must recognise the potential in all our young people to deliver what employers, colleges and unis need. Assessment must benchmark talent. There is value in exams, as they can act as comparators within our system and with other places, but we should acknowledge that the uniform show of knowledge that they demand does not work for everyone. Some children’s talent will be demonstrated in other ways. Some will struggle to produce an answer on paper, but that does not mean that they have not taken in what they have learned. Reducing the weight and changing the format of exams could help with that.

So, too, could a changed approach to the way in which we talk about qualifications and the way in which we develop them, award them and accredit them. That will help us to re-engage pupils through the delivery of parity of esteem and will improve outcomes for all pupils, including pupils with additional support needs. Therefore, I believe that the Government should accept Professor Ken Muir’s recommendation to split the functions in the new bodies that replace the SQA and Education Scotland. I believe that doing that will be fundamental to meaningful reform.

Recognising and valuing a young person’s journey and unique talents is crucial in spreading and fostering opportunity, and the personal pathway in the diploma has the potential to do that and to value talent for all. However, as others have said, it must be recognised that that approach is about valuing potential, removing barriers and guarding against inequality. Well-off children should not have an unfair advantage, and pupils with ASN should have access to the same extracurricular activities as other children.

I believe that we can achieve that if we measure success in schools differently, implement the Morgan review and support youth work. It is clear that, for so many reasons, reform is needed urgently. We should never pit one path against another. We should broaden opportunity and empower young people to take the path by which they will excel, and then empower schools and education authorities to set them on that path. Every child should face the world with no glass or class or stepped ceiling in their way, knowing that they are valued and equipped with the knowledge and skills that can transcend barriers.

In order to do that and to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, we will need to introduce reform. Colleagues, we must do that quickly. Now that we know what is needed, it is time to leave behind an era of review, usher in an era of implementation and deliver the education system that our young people need, so that they can enjoy and create the opportunities of tomorrow.

16:19  

I welcome the constructive and open discussion that we had last week with the cabinet secretary. I thought that that was quite a helpful session; she was much more open than I was expecting her to be, which was a good thing.

I have to say that it is ridiculous to have only four minutes to sum up my thoughts on the issue before us. We need much longer to discuss such matters, so I hope that we get more time at a future opportunity.

This is not year zero; 2016 was not even year zero. It was year zero way before then.

I think that the education community has been expecting significant reform after the reviews that Liam Kerr very meticulously set out. I pity the researcher who was tasked with working all that out. There have been a number of committees—lots and lots of them—and there have been various reviews that have built up an expectation in the education community that change is going to come. Therefore, this sudden change of direction—it is quite a sudden change of direction, and I will come on to explain what my views about it are—has discombobulated the education sector. Those in the sector are a bit confused as to exactly what is going to happen, and that is why this debate needs to give them clarity.

I have sympathy with the argument that there is enough going on. I accept that, with issues in relation to behaviour, additional support needs and high absence rates, together with various other things, the sector is under a lot of pressure and we need to be really careful about how we proceed. The problem with that is that there is an expectation—our previous First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, set it out—that, by 2026, we will have educational improvement in international terms and we will be closing the poverty-related attainment gap, whether substantially or completely. There is an expectation among the electorate that that is going to be done. The problem with the argument that there is enough going on already is that it implies that we are just going to stick with the status quo until we have things under control. We cannot just accept the status quo—we need to make improvements.

The problem that I have in relation to the behavioural issue and the absence policy that the minister set out is that I do not think that enough is being done. We need to have leadership from the top explaining why we think that the assessment on behaviour needs to change. The education secretary knows that I am in favour of setting clear boundaries and having consequences—or microconsequences, as some people call them—so that pupils know where they stand. I think that that is required in our schools, and teachers need to know that the education secretary has their back when they take those steps.

We need change. Before Christmas, I set out a number of changes that I thought should be included. On knowledge, I think that the education secretary has moved on. It is a welcome step to increase the knowledge content in maths. On resources, Pam Duncan-Glancy set out the contact time—we need progress on that. I am not particularly confident that the cabinet secretary will be able to deliver it, but we need it. I have talked about behaviour already. We need to change the Scottish national standardised assessments. The standardised assessments for P1s are ridiculous and they should go. They undermine the curriculum for excellence approach that we have adopted—that broader approach to education.

On accountability, the problem with delaying the reform to the national bodies is that we are leaving a vacuum. We need national bodies that have heft and are able to challenge the educational establishment.

I have not even got on to Hayward. I will quickly rattle through the Hayward review. On exams, I broadly accept the position of Carole Ford and the Commission for School Reform on nat 5s. I disagree with Pam Duncan-Glancy—I think that we should move back to the two-plus-two-plus-two model, as it avoids the two-term dash. I have sympathy with changing the continuous assessments. Looking at reform of the number of qualifications that we have is sensible.

I have concerns about introducing a personal pathway. The personal pathway is a big step, particularly in relation to how we are going to validate it. We could do more project work, not just the tokenistic stuff that some are implementing.

On parity of esteem, we should be using the Scottish credit and qualifications framework much more explicitly and we should be looking at the insight programme, which drives much of the behaviour in schools in terms of what headteachers try to encourage pupils to participate in. I have not really dug into that. We need so much more time for this debate.

As we move to the open debate, I remind all members who wish to speak to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak button. I advise members that back-bench speeches can be up to four minutes.

16:24  

The SNP Government has an excellent track record of investing in Scottish education. We have significantly more teachers per pupil than Tory-led England or Labour-run Wales. Likewise, Scotland has more schools per pupil than Wales or England. Scotland has the highest level of school spend per pupil anywhere in the UK—it is £1,300 higher per pupil—and it has shielded students from extortionate financial burdens by abolishing tuition fees in 2007 and graduate endowment fees a year later.

Will the member take an intervention?

No—I do not have enough time. Sorry.

That has gone some way to reducing the poverty-related attainment gap, which is a massive issue in my constituency. At the start of my speech, I put on record my thanks to all staff and pupils in schools across Coatbridge and Chryston for their on-going hard work and commitment.

Turning to the substance of the motion, I welcome the final report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment, which was published last June, and the survey on the recommendations. The time for change is now. The question of reform has been around for some time, but the pandemic has certainly exacerbated the need for change.

I will take a couple of minutes to pay tribute to the young people whose education was severely disrupted during the pandemic in an unprecedented way. As that period gets further and further in the past, it can be easy to forget the situation that unfolded for our young people. Children were off school for months in separate periods. They learned online and were separated from friends. Although we all agree that that was necessary to stop the spread of the virus, the known and as yet unknown consequences for our children’s learning and overall wellbeing could be extremely significant and should never be underestimated.

I believe that the Scottish Government recognises that, which is why I welcome, for example, the work that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has been undertaking on behaviour in schools. I have no doubt—and I am sure that others across the chamber agree—that, in my case load, there has been an increase in reported difficult behaviours in schools, much of which can be attributed to the pandemic period.

I welcome the measures that the cabinet secretary set out today, including the adoption of the Scottish diploma of achievement as a graduation certificate for all senior phase educational settings; the end of exams in secondary 4 and the use of a wider range of assessment methods in highers and advanced highers; and a digital profile for all learners, which will allow students to record personal achievements and identify and plan future learning.

I am pleased about the decisions on in-person exams and the direction in which we seem to be heading, which I believe that young people across the country will welcome. During a recent visit to St Andrew’s high school in Coatbridge, when speaking to modern studies classes, I asked the pupils outright whether they were for in-person exams or a continuous learning model, and an overwhelming majority were in favour of the latter. It is good that, at last, we are appreciating the stress that the exam process can place on our young people.

We all know that education is very much an interconnected tapestry, and we must strive to deliver real change in the round. One area where I think that we can achieve better outcomes in the longer term is by raising the school starting age and implementing a kindergarten phase for our young people. That is, of course, Scottish National Party policy, and it is no secret that having a school starting age of five makes Scotland and the UK an outlier in an international sense. We need to be radical to do that and willing to invest in a future dividend, and the time to do it is now.

The benefits could be substantial and could help to tackle the growing issues of child and adolescent emotional and mental health, the increasing diagnoses of learning and behavioural difficulties and the poverty-related attainment gap. As I led on the Give Them Time campaign—at least from a Parliament angle—and following my colleague Kaukab Stewart’s promotion to ministerial office, I am pleased to say that I will be progressing the issue in the Parliament. In the coming weeks, I will meet the lead organisation, Upstart Scotland, and lodge a motion for a members’ business debate, for which I hope to have support from members from across the chamber.

I welcome the report and the motion. I believe that we have strong foundations to build on as we move forward.

16:28  

We cannot afford to think that curriculum for excellence, which was introduced in 2010-11, will still be fit for purpose by the end of this century. Indeed, it is terrifying to think that those who are entering our early years provision now will still be working at the end of this century. Societal changes are happening at breakneck speeds, and digital evolution is at the very front of those changes.

In thinking about the speed of technological evolution, I googled “breakthroughs in 2010”, and up came an article from Business Insider from December 2010 on the most groundbreaking inventions of that year. Number 1 was the iPad. Why was it groundbreaking? The article said:

“The iPad is the first widely used touch-screen tablet and, according to one analyst, it is ‘the fastest-selling nonphone gizmo in consumer-electronics history.’

The iPad is so influential, clothes and bags are being customized to carry it easily. Larger than a cellphone and lighter than a laptop, the iPad is transforming the way people work on the go.”

We all know what happened to the iPad.

In technology and society, things must move on and rapidly evolve and adapt, which is why Scottish Conservative members understand and accept the need for education reform, which should be taking place at pace. What that reform might look like is very much up for discussion, which is why having cross-party support for the premise of accepting change is essential and a critical first step in the process.

Let us not forget that, under the Scottish National Party Government, education has gone backwards in international rankings; scores in maths, science and reading are at an all-time low; almost half of Scottish schools have not been inspected in 10 years; and there has been a failure to make significant progress in closing the elusive attainment gap. Previous attempts by the SNP to lodge an education bill were abandoned, despite education being called a flagship policy. Teacher numbers are down by more than a thousand since the SNP came to power—in 2007, there were 55,100 teachers; in 2023, there were 54,033, with the threat of more losses in Glasgow, where teacher numbers are likely to reduce by more than 400 in the next three years The SNP has failed to deliver free school meals for all primary school children, despite promising to do so by August 2022. Entries in science subjects at higher level are at their lowest of the past five years.

As I have stated previously, it is now a question of what reform might look like and the pace at which change is implemented. We heard that, in the period just after the pandemic—if such a period can be defined, to be frank—there was a significant appetite for change from those who work in the profession. Now, we are aware of widespread concerns that teachers have highlighted about aspects of the review. For example, 57 per cent of teachers disagree with scrapping exams for S4 pupils, so we have to be careful. It is imperative that the implementation of any of the review’s recommendations is done in conjunction with teachers. Let us not forget the critical role of parents, pupils and other staff, whose voices are equally important when changes are considered. That collaborative approach will ensure that the reforms are not only well informed but reflective of the practical realities in classrooms across Scotland.

We want to see urgent action to reverse the decline of Scottish education, instead of more dithering and delay. It is essential to prioritise pupils’ needs throughout the process. We cannot follow a reform agenda that results in the status quo; our young people and schools have been let down far too often before.

I call for no more extensive and costly reviews, which lead to frustrating delays. Other countries are striving ahead with their education reform agenda and it is time that the SNP Government got in the race. We cannot afford to let our children down; after all, they are the future. We have to equip them with the skills to face the rapidly evolving future that is ahead of us.

16:32  

The debate is hugely important and it is critical to get it right, not just for our young people and learners more widely but for the wider economy and society. The Hayward report mentions the World Economic Forum, which identified that education systems globally are lagging behind disruption in the economy and society, which is being driven by technology and other factors.

We live in an increasingly competitive international economy. Countries around the globe are developing their education systems at depth and scale. That is great for economic development, but it makes the situation even more competitive—I think that India has about 2.5 million STEM graduates annually, which is what we are competing against. Scotland’s competitive advantage will involve building on our strong educational legacy to stay ahead of those trends and our competitors.

The availability of skills is a key issue for inward investment and business growth, and it is the factor that inward investors identify most when they come to Scotland. The issue is not how much money Scottish Enterprise gives them or anything else that is going on, but the great skills pipeline that we have coming through our higher and further education system. It is hugely important that that continues to keep us in pole position.

Employers and businesses need meta skills—critical thinking, innovation, interpersonal skills, teamwork and much more—as well as students and young people who are coming through the system with knowledge. The combination of both is critically important. Technology does not solve all problems. We cannot google everything; it is absolutely essential that we understand the answers that come up and how to apply them. It is important that that builds on and supports the curriculum for excellence agenda.

The review identified the importance of project learning, which is a key part of the proposed Scottish diploma of achievement. It was welcome to hear the cabinet secretary mention that in her opening remarks. Project work allows learners to develop meta skills through work in areas that they have an interest in. It is also important that project work that involves business start-up ideas brings out entrepreneurial skills, as was cited in many cases that were mentioned in the review.

The work of the review needs to be closely aligned with the work of the national strategy for economic transformation in two ways. First, it must align with the skills actions, which are one of the five pillars of the national strategy for economic transformation. There should be close alignment on how the work will be taken into the economic space. Secondly, it needs to align with our drive to create more entrepreneurial start-ups, and it needs to enthuse young people by giving them the understanding that that is a legitimate, worthwhile and encouraged career path for them. The encouragement of meta skills and project-based learning helps to draw that out among young people and to highlight the link between curriculum work and what they may choose to do in their future career.

As all members do, I spend time visiting schools in my constituency and engaging with young people, and because of the work that I did when I was a minister and work that I continue to do to engage with the business community, I go from the school environment to talk to businesses that are in Scotland’s tremendous, world-leading growth sectors, such as space, life science, financial technology, financial services, advanced manufacturing and many others besides.

Creating that link strikes me as being somewhat challenging. There could be understanding in the school environment of the opportunities in the work environment and of the well-paid jobs and fulfilling careers that exist in the sectors of the future. We need to do anything that we can to ensure that young people, their teachers and others in the school environment understand how changes to the curriculum can lead to worthwhile and profitable career opportunities. Businesses are keen to be part of that work.

I am glad that the Government is doing this work. It is hugely important that it continues to engage with businesses and other employers, which happened as part of the Hayward review. It also needs to continue to engage with others in the education system, including teachers, parents, pupils and staff.

16:37  

First, I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has consulted those in the school and college teaching professions. That was the right thing to do, and it was good. The proof of the pudding will be what views are then taken on board, but that was the right approach.

The cabinet secretary also said that reform must come alongside driving educational improvement. I agree with that. That must be done to address some of the issues that we currently have in our education system, which are widely publicised in the media and elsewhere.

The review considered short-term, medium-term and long-term priorities, but, on reading the review, they are all quite similar. The review says that reform needs to be underpinned by adequate and sustained funding to increase the number of teaching and support staff. That is a major issue that has come up during the past few months.

Issues in education have been raised, by teaching staff in particular, during the many meetings that I have had with the sector. I know that the cabinet secretary has had such meetings, too. Teacher workload is an important issue, and it is continually raised when we speak to teachers or when we meet with trade unions.

Another issue is support for pupils with additional support needs. As I have said to the cabinet secretary before, I have met parents with children who have additional support needs who have said that they feel that getting it right for every child has not necessarily worked through the mainstream in schools. However, they made the point that, if we want to get it right for every child by mainstreaming, we have to ensure that there is support for kids with additional support needs.

There are big issues that need to be addressed. There are also issues related to curricular and technological resources. Sometimes, schools in more prosperous areas are able to raise lots of funds and they have the very best equipment, while schools in the less prosperous areas do not have that resource. It is important to consider that.

Willie Rennie raised a point about behaviour. We have to set out what is acceptable, what is not acceptable and what the consequences are. Teachers are crying out for that. Teachers tell me that it is not always clear that there will be consequences for poor behaviour. The cabinet secretary will quite rightly point out that the majority of pupils in schools are generally well behaved and are getting on with things, but it just takes one child in a classroom to completely disrupt that class. We need to be much firmer and much clearer.

I remember speaking to a teacher some months ago and mentioning the word “discipline”, referring to being disciplined when I was at school. The teacher made the point to me that teachers are not encouraged to use the word “discipline” in schools. They have to talk about “positive outcomes” and “positive behaviours”. Let us be absolutely clear with kids: they are expected to be disciplined when they are in the school, and they cannot disrupt the education of everyone else. Clear guidance has to be given around that.

I really believe in one of the points that was made in response to the consultation. It was

“said that this was one of the most important recommendations. Respondents emphasised the need for equal recognition of academic and vocational qualifications.”

That is absolutely correct. A lot of pupils may go on to do academic work later in life, but we have to ensure that the route for vocational education is improved and enhanced compared to where it is now.

That is me out of time. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

16:41  

I welcome the publication of “It’s Our Future”, the final report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I agree

“that it is crucial that the Scottish Government ensures a fair and credible qualifications and assessment system that enhances learning and teaching and creates improved outcomes for young people”.

I also agree with the main thrust of the two amendments to the motion—that teachers, parents and pupils need to be at the heart of any reform. I sincerely believe that the Scottish Government has been, and continues to be, committed to ensuring that that is the case.

In September 2022, the Scottish Government launched a national discussion headed “Let’s talk education”. It invited all young people in Scotland aged from three to 18 to share their ideas, views and experiences around education. As part of the “Let’s talk education” strategy, resources were developed to promote discussion, and events took place all over Scotland, led by schools, community groups and third sector organisations. Those discussions, along with feedback from parents, carers and teachers, were vital in shaping the recommendations contained in “It’s Our Future”. Those recommendations will lead to the adoption of a Scottish diploma of achievement as a graduation certificate for all senior-phase educational settings, an end of exams in S4, a wider range of assessment methods using highers and advanced highers, and a digital profile for all learners to allow them to record personal achievements and to identify and plan future learning. Those changes start in 2024, and I agree that the reforms must be taken forward with the voices of young people and teachers at their heart.

I agree with Professor Hayward that another voice that plays a key role in education—one that is perhaps often overlooked but needs to be front and centre—is the voice of those involved in youth work. The professor said:

“Reform means bringing together all of our resources in education, and in youth work, and in other areas ... to focus these and to make best use of each individual components to give every learner the best possible life chance - and youth work has got to be a central part of that process.”

Mollie McGoran, chair of the Scottish Youth Parliament, said:

“Generally, for young people we’re seeing that youth work has so much value in the education space, in poverty prevention, in crime reduction, it’s really central to everything young people can get out of, what they should be able to get out of, their community.”

A national discussion carried out by YouthLink Scotland showed that 88 per cent of respondents wanted the skills that they had learned through youth work to be acknowledged alongside formal qualifications, and 87 per cent felt that young people should have access to youth work in school.

I believe that the value of youth work is clear, and I also believe that it needs to be further recognised and incorporated into any future reforms. In that respect, I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary how we can include those voices on the journey. I am equally keen to explore the issue further with colleagues on the Education, Children and Young People Committee as we help to shape the exciting further reforms in the future.

16:45  

I have a lot to cram into four minutes, but the cabinet secretary need not worry—I can write to her at length about this if required. I agree with Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie that we also need at least one full afternoon’s debate.

The Greens have long argued against high-stakes, end-of-term exams and in favour of continuous assessment. We want to see a rounded measurement of a student’s knowledge and ability, not a snapshot of how they respond to specific circumstances, which can be significantly affected by variables such as illness.

The pandemic gave us comparative data sets, which prove that there is a problem here somewhere. In 2020, there were no exams and grades were eventually issued on the basis of teachers’ professional judgment. Attainment went up across the board, but the attainment of working-class kids went up far more—the attainment gap narrowed. In 2021, there were no exams again. There were quasi, internal exams in schools, with the same effect but to a lesser extent.

Either normal exams are devaluing working-class students or teacher judgment is overestimating them. I trust teacher judgment to a significant extent, but, whatever side we come down on, the question needs to be answered as we go on with the process: why do traditional high-stakes, end-of-term exam models result in such a wide attainment gap between those from the most and the least deprived backgrounds, whereas models that base grades on evidence that is generated through continuous assessment or teacher judgment result in a far narrower gap?

The reality is that our exam and assessment system has not changed since the Victorian era, but we know so much more about young people, learning and how to measure attainment and achievement than we did back then. In Scotland, we overassess, and we often assess the wrong things. We are valuing what we measure, not measuring what we value. Young people, colleges, universities and employers want more than that. Professor Hayward’s recommendations are the opportunity to move from the 19th to the 21st century.

I recognise the tension between the appetite for reform and the clear message from teachers that the current system is not achieving what we want, and the sense—primarily also from teachers—that they are already overwhelmed and would struggle with more change. We certainly cannot increase teacher workload by adding more internal assessment responsibilities on top of existing ones, but we need to break that impasse. I am glad that the motion makes clear that the intention is to achieve significant reform in this parliamentary session.

Young people have repeatedly made it clear through consultation that they overwhelmingly want those reforms, particularly the move to continuous assessment. We saw that in the review of the 2021 alternative certification model. A move away from external exams requires trust in teachers—the kind of trust that exists in other systems, such as in Finland. However, Scottish teachers do not feel trusted by the SQA. Many feel that the standardised assessments indicate a lack of trust by the Scottish Government.

There are a couple of specific issues, which I will run through, that I think we need to address. Professor Stobart highlighted that in having external exams in all three years of the senior phase we are an outlier. That is a key reason why we are not really delivering CFE in the senior phase—we are teaching to the exam. The Greens would rather end external examination in S4, but we recognise the need to mitigate against qualifications without an external examination being seen as lesser. We want to see a reduced role for exams across the senior phase.

We also need to resolve the contradiction between the ability to choose up to nine national 5s and each course requiring at least 140 hours. We cannot timetable nine times 140 hours in a school year. That speaks to a wider misalignment between the curriculum and the qualifications systems, as identified by the OECD. That, in turn, is the result of a lack of cohesion between the SQA and Education Scotland. The governance reforms need to address that, potentially by putting more strategic direction within the Government’s learning directorate.

The Greens are very enthusiastic about Professor Hayward’s recommendations, and I urge the cabinet secretary to implement them pretty much in full. I have one caveat about the diploma—we need to make sure that those who do not get a diploma do not end up with the stigma that exists in systems such as that in the US around not graduating from high school.

There is a really important opportunity for employers, in particular, with the personal pathway and project learning, which will recognise a potential candidate’s teamworking skills, leadership abilities and communication skills—aspects that traditional subject qualifications do not give an indication of to an employer.

I have barely scratched the surface, but I recognise the need to wind up. There are many more issues to touch on, but there is a high expectation that we achieve a lot with the reform process. There is a relatively high level of consensus, so we cannot afford half measures.

One clear lesson from the most recent reform to curriculum for excellence was that it was a mistake to do only half of it and not to reform qualifications at the same time.

Please conclude, Mr Greer.

We cannot do that again. We need to be brave and seize the opportunity to create a system that will serve young people in our society for decades.

16:49  

I will use my time today to emphasise some of what Professor Hayward has said. First, I draw Parliament’s attention to the evidence that we received from her at the Education, Children and Young People Committee last year.

At the beginning of her evidence to the committee, Professor Hayward made five key points that are worth repeating. First, she said that the report

“offers a longer-term direction of travel for qualifications and assessment in Scotland.”

She emphasised that

“This is not a quick fix; it is about thinking about the future and making sure that we have a future that serves every learner, and Scotland as a nation, well”—[Official Report, Education, Young People and Children Committee, 20 September 2023; c 30.]

That really important point feeds into what the cabinet secretary has said about taking the necessary time. Yes, we need to move at pace where it is possible and practicable to do so, but we need to take the necessary time to ensure that we get reform right.

Secondly, Professor Hayward emphasised that, although the review is called the “Hayward review” colloquially, that name could not, in her view, be further from the truth, because she engaged across the country with a range of stakeholders, and the thinking and agreed positions in the report are from across all those communities. That attaches to the emphasis that the Government is placing on engaging with the profession and all other stakeholders. It is great to see the party-political consensus that is indicated by the amendments to the motion. That wide engagement will be so important going forward.

Thirdly, Professor Hayward emphasised that “vision is absolutely crucial.” She was keen to impress on the committee that, if no vision is set, there will be a real danger that, through the years of implementation, we will collectively lose sight of where we are trying to get to and, at that point, the process of review will begin again. Within the profession and among stakeholders who are relevant to reform, we must get a collectively agreed vision that is as solidified as possible. That also applies to the political sphere. We will be able to serve our constituents better in the reform if we agree on a position as much as possible and if we avoid party-political attacks on the issue and focus on the national interest of getting reform right.

Fourthly, Professor Hayward emphasised that

“The pace of putting ideas into practice should depend on the level of resourcing that is available. It is about working through the ideas and being realistic about the investment that can be made as they develop.”—[Official Report, Education, Young People and Children Committee, 20 September 2023; c 31.]

That is a really important point—we must keep in mind the financial challenge that we face nationally.

Fifthly, Professor Hayward said that no idea is contained in her report that is not already being implemented in at least one other country. That is a significant point. We must keep in mind that we can learn from other countries around the world, as we engage in reform.

In the time that I have remaining, I will refer to two recommendations in the report that could be quick wins. Recommendation 12, which is about artificial intelligence, emphasises that

“As a matter of urgency, Scottish Government should convene and lead a cross-sector commission to develop a shared value position on the future of AI”.

If we do not get ahead of the AI revolution, we will fall behind economically. That applies in the education context, too. Learning to use AI should be in our curriculum across the board as soon as possible.

Also, recommendation 16 is an important issue that teachers are raising with the Government at this point.

There is lots more to talk about in a future debate, Presiding Officer.

16:54  

I have enjoyed listening to today’s debate, but a little bit of balance always has to be inserted into our debates. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary groans. I know that she will not want to listen to me, but she has committed to listening more widely.

I have spoken many times in the chamber on the subject and have drawn on the words of Lindsay Paterson. It would be wrong for his voice to be absent from the debate, so I will start by citing a couple of his thoughts on the Hayward review. He said that

“the Review ought to be challenged, rigorously and radically, because it is deeply disappointing. Its methods were flawed, and its recommendations vapid. It has a few good ideas, but they are not worked out in any detail and their practicability is doubtful. Implementing what it proposes would perpetuate the harm already inflicted by the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence, that two-decade-old reform which the present Review extols as admirable.”

I am happy to acknowledge that there are good things in the review and that it is a good opportunity for a conversation about how we move forward, but I share the concerns about how rigorous the review has been in terms of its starting point and the evidence base on which it is built.

I worry—a number of members have touched on this—that not enough consideration has been given to how the changes will impact our most deprived communities and the young people who face the biggest challenges and barriers to education. Lots of things sound good in the abstract when we talk about them here in the chamber, but, like some other members, I worry about the “personal pathway”. I worry about what it means for young people in my constituency who do not have after-school clubs to go to, or access to exciting national programmes.

Opportunities such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award are not attainable for all young people at the moment. There are schools in my constituency with young people who would love to continue playing a musical instrument, but that opportunity is not there for them, or is not properly supported. Many young people have the aptitude and ability to take on an interdisciplinary project, but maybe not at the age of 15 and maybe not from the starting point at which they currently find themselves.

Does Oliver Mundell agree that youth work could feed in exceptionally well to those groups of people and provide support that they might not otherwise get?

I acknowledge that. However, the very good youth work services in my patch, which are award winning and for which I have huge admiration, do not have the resources to deliver that kind of support.

I also question whether such support would be a substitute for the teaching and academic support that those young people deserve; they would flourish if those things were there, too. I am concerned that, in some schools, in some parts of the country and in some quarters of our society, we say that it is okay for some people to opt out of qualifications and formal academic learning, despite the fact that they have the ability and the desire to achieve qualifications. We say, “These other things are the things for you. Don’t worry that you don’t have the qualifications that you need to follow your dreams—we’ve found some other things that can work as part of your qualification to make up for it.” We have to be very careful that we get the balance right and that we do not allow reform to be a chance to write people off.

16:58  

Although the debate focuses on the qualifications and assessment review, it is impossible to look at that in isolation. Falling teacher numbers, increasing instances of violence and aggression, a drop in our programme for international student assessment scores, declining school attendance and the pandemic—the impact of which was highlighted by Fulton MacGregor—are just some of the challenges in education that provide the context for the debate.

Reform of Scottish education needs to begin with addressing the outstanding issues. Our young people deserve an education system that supports them to reach their full potential. Our teachers and school staff deserve an education system that recognises and values their dedication and hard work.

The recommendations of the Hayward review, which have been broadly agreed with, at this point lack the detail to make them workable. Without that detail, it is difficult to see them as being achievable. Can there be any confidence in the sector that they will go ahead, when we have seen review after review over recent years, without the Scottish Government enacting the reform that is required?

From looking at the findings of the school and college teacher consultation on the recommendations, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that respondents deemed such a range of issues—including funding, qualifications assessment and clarity around reforms—to be priorities that there was little consensus on what the overall priority should be.

Many respondents pointed to the importance of adequate and sustained funding. The success of any reform will be dependent on sufficient and long-term funding for staff and resources to deliver the proposed changes, but there are concerns that funding will be insufficient. Those concerns reflect the challenges of workload, resourcing and support that affect our schools, teachers and pupils right now. We need adequate and sustained funding in order to increase teaching and support staff, to address workload, to support pupils with ASN and to improve resources for subjects in schools. The cabinet secretary and I heard about some of those from pupils at Newcastle primary school on Monday. Without delivering the workforce support that will allow the professional teaching and learning development that is required for the reforms, they will not be achieved.

The recommendations are welcome, but we need them to be workable. A recurring theme in the responses was that the recommendations are too vague. There needs to be clarity on how assessment will be standardised if early-stage examinations are reduced, and on whether that will mean more work for individual teachers. There is potential to develop online submission methods that could be used by pupils and teachers. That could present savings in resource and assessment costs, because it would remove some of the need for physical locations for verification processes.

Who will be responsible for project learning, and will there be national resources? Demonstration of commitment or achievement in extracurricular activities is something that employers recognise, but at present it can be difficult to present that to colleges or universities for those who are not skilled at writing a personal statement.

There are also challenges in ensuring that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not further disadvantaged—which many MSPs have raised this afternoon—in relation to project learning potential, which will require investment in opportunities for extracurricular activities and the ability to record personal achievements. We know that some opportunities that previously existed, such as groups with an environmental focus, have been lost to some schools as a result of funding pressures and lack of scope among school staff for the additional work that is required.

The recommendation for parity of esteem between academic, vocational, professional and technical qualifications is welcome, but it will bring additional resourcing challenges that need to be recognised. Our schools are, right now, struggling to provide the necessary resources for practical subjects such as home economics, and in some schools such subjects are being dropped for cost reasons. In January, technology departments were told that there is no money left in the budget until the next financial year. Delivering those courses for pupils means properly resourcing them in all parts of the country.

Since 2016, the Scottish Government has commissioned a series of reviews on various aspects of Scotland’s education system but has neglected to act on them. The outcomes of the Hayward review present an opportunity for change, but we need more detail on how they would work in practice. If the Scottish Government is serious about taking them forward, it must, as its first step, address the current and significant challenges that our schools, pupils, teachers and staff face.

17:02  

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the “It’s Our Future” report. I spend much time thinking about the future of my children and grandchildren, all eight of whom have made or are currently making their way through the Scottish education system.

This fully comprehensive report spans 152 pages, but I wish to focus my remarks on the elements that strike a personal chord with me and that I know will strike a chord with many families across Scotland whom I have had the privilege of working with throughout my time in politics. The points that I wish to focus on are about how we can better support children and young people who have neurodivergent conditions to not just get by but fully participate and thrive on their educational journeys.

Recommendation 1, “Change Qualifications and Assessment in the Senior Phase in Scotland”, is very welcome. The report notes that many learners who were spoken to as part of the review reported high levels of stress caused by the overt focus on examinations. I agree that

“change must be carefully planned and resourced.”

We know that stress and anxiety are often one of the major aspects of having a neurodivergent condition. Supporting neurodivergent children in our education system demands a holistic and inclusive approach that not only recognises their unique ways of learning and interacting with the world but their unique ways of showing and understanding their learning. It is about creating environments where neurodiversity is seen as a valuable perspective that enriches our whole system and not a barrier to success.

Allowing for more long-term overviews of the educational progress of children and young people will, in my view, result in a fairer picture of their progress. By fostering that inclusive approach, we can ensure that our education system is not merely inclusive by design but empowering in practice. To allow neurodivergent children to flourish academically and socially, without there being the pressure of what is to come, assessments could be immersive and integrated into learning.

Recommendation 7 states:

“All learners should be offered a broad range of courses including academic, vocational, professional and technical courses.”

That will ensure that our children and young people reach their full potential and are able to do what they need to do in order to have their needs met.

I have had many interactions with children and young people over the years—as well as being a mother and a grandmother, I was a young women’s leader for a few years and ran a local playgroup—and it is obvious, when interacting with a wide range of young children, from many different aspects of life and from different demographics, that one is no more or less worthy than another when it comes to showing either academic abilities or vocational talents. I welcome the report’s remarks on parity of esteem for each learning pathway.

On that point, I look forward to visiting local businesses in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency next week as part of Scottish apprenticeship week. Such businesses support many of our local young people through the valuable learning opportunity of apprenticeships.

Our aim should be for young people to leave our Scottish education system with the tools that will help them to navigate their personal and professional lives. More important—this is vital—they should be able to look back at an experience that has had a positive impact on their life. For that to happen, we must ensure that, when building or reforming our education system, we build it not to be modified but in an inclusive way from the foundations up.

17:07  

It has been a fascinating debate. As always, it is a great pleasure to follow Karen Adam, who is an incredibly strong advocate for our neurodivergent young people. If we can get it right for them, we will get it right for all our young people, because the processes that work best with neurodivergent children are also the processes that allow children who are struggling to develop skills to do so much more quickly than would be the case if they were being lectured at from the front of the class, which rarely happens now. One of the standards that we should seek is that classrooms should be welcoming to all young people who attend. We know from the rising numbers of children with additional support needs that our teachers and other pupils face that dynamic in our classrooms daily.

I was going to list all the reports, but Liam Kerr did that, so I refer members to his speech. We anticipate the Government’s response, in the near future, to the international council of education advisers’ most recent report, but it is worth pointing out that the report says:

“the time for commissioning reviews is now over.”

I think that members across the chamber recognise that. There is strong consensus on the need for action, but the specifics remain to be determined.

We are concerned that the momentum of change might not match the appetite for change within the system, and I look forward to the responses to the six strategic areas. Although there might be disagreement when we vote at decision time—perhaps we could have had this debate without a motion or with a very short motion, which might have been an interesting strategy to pursue—members from across the chamber have given their ideas, and there has been a great deal of consensus, which the Government can build on.

However, there are also areas of concern. The specific report that this debate is about is just one piece of the jigsaw or, as one member put it, one part of the “tapestry” of education.

It is important that a number of contributions indicated the need for a discussion about the vision behind the reform. The cabinet secretary, better than most, will recall the roll-out of curriculum for excellence. There was a period of enormous enthusiasm for change among the education profession, which saw it as a great opportunity. However, for whatever reason, systems that sit around our education system just kept battering at it, knocking it and asking it to shift slightly, so that some of the great strengths of curriculum for excellence have started to be lost, as Ross Greer highlighted.

A number of members commented on the shortage of time for this debate. I think that it is fitting that we have debates in which members struggle to get to contribute, because that shows the importance of what we are talking about.

Willie Rennie’s contribution, which highlighted the use of the SCQF—which could be used more widely—also speaks to the proposal for a diploma and whether we have an opportunity, which we did not have with curriculum for excellence, to redraw the language of assessment and with regard to how we allow young people to show their ability.

There was a fascinating contribution from Ivan McKee about the importance of the relationship with business and the perception that still exists, rightly or wrongly, about there being a misunderstanding about what the two areas of business and education demand of each other. This is an opportunity to bring those areas together. Ivan McKee’s contribution about meta learning and the ability of project learning to facilitate that was very interesting. That ties in with the report and with that demand with regard to the tension between the meta skills and the personal knowledge that we need. Again, that has been a tension in curriculum for excellence almost since day 1. This process is an opportunity to look at and address that.

Alex Rowley’s contribution on GIRFEC, who it applies to and the fact that it boils down to resource spoke to the tension between the change that we need to see in the short term—which does require resource—and the vision for the long term. We should not take steps in the short term that damage our long-term vision. However, without that vision, we are really challenged in that respect.

I thank Bill Kidd for his contribution on youth work—it saved me two paragraphs of my speech—because of the importance of the role that youth work plays, which I made an intervention on, in the lives of some of our young people, particularly in the short term for those who are challenged with regard to their engagement. I echo his call to explore that further.

Ross Greer’s contribution was fascinating, because there is a tension with regard to whether we trust teachers. During Covid, we had an insight into the potential of teacher assessment. A number of contributions referred to the insurance that people outside the education environment perhaps need on that. However, we must also remember—again, this speaks to the challenge with regard to CFE—that strange piece of AI that suddenly reduced certain young people’s grades, depending on their postcode.

I thank Oliver Mundell. I think that he was concerned that he was going to change the tone of the debate but, to be fair, I do not think that he did. He raised very important issues. There is a tension with regard to academic achievement and young people. One of the things that this Parliament can do is not instruct but debate what that the solution to that tension should be.

17:13  

I thank every member who contributed to the debate. It is a privilege to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, not least because it is a rare occurrence that we are debating the substance of the education of our young people. I agree with Willie Rennie and Ross Greer that our time today is, unfortunately, just a little too short.

As my colleagues have highlighted, we understand the need for reform. Sue Webber is absolutely right that we need our education system in Scotland to evolve and adapt at pace. We want urgent action to reverse the decline of Scottish education, instead of dithering and delays. However, it is essential that the needs of pupils are prioritised throughout that process. There has been too long a delay, with review after review, and it is our pupils who are let down all too often.

The need for a varied education offer and the general acceptance that no one route is the single route to success are of personal importance to me. I have mentioned before that I did not leave school to go to university—that route was not right for me. At school, I found the whole process of learning in an overtly structured way very difficult. I had an aptitude for function and discussion, so a positive destination for me was a management training scheme within what we called, at that point in the 1980s, “big business”. I started at House of Fraser stores.

It has been interesting to listen to the debate. I will highlight a couple of contributions from members across the chamber that I think are particularly worth noting.

Straight up, I have to tell Pam Duncan-Glancy that I like a jigsaw analogy, so I thank her for that. Along with Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie, Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned the number of reviews that we have had and how important it is that they all work together to bring forward a joined-up strategy, so that we can catch any duplication, as was mentioned by my colleague Liam Kerr.

Pam Duncan-Glancy also mentioned the difficulty of the current system for ASN students, and she said that moving forward with reform is needed sooner rather than later. I agree whole-heartedly with that.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments that a move to continuous assessment cannot add to teacher workload. However, we must improve outcomes for young people. I highlight that comment.

Willie Rennie was right to comment that there are expectations in the country around the need to move forward and that those expectations have to be met. He was also right to mention misbehaviour in our classrooms. We need consequences rather than discipline, which is what, for some time, we on the Conservative benches have been calling for.

Ivan McKee was right to mention the important link to business growth and entrepreneurship, which I will also comment on.

I highlight the comments from Oliver Mundell. It was right for my colleague to raise concerns, because that is the whole point of debate. It is how we, in this place, make changes that work for everyone.

I know that I have a short amount of time, so I will finish by raising the following points. I have to be honest and say that, when Professor Hayward—supported by an independent review group including learners, teachers, employers, universities and colleges—published the report, back in June last year, given the breadth of the review group, I assumed that there was a level of buy-in to the recommendations. However, I was surprised yesterday to read the level of disagreement with some of the proposals. The classic example of that is in relation to the recommendation about the Scottish diploma for achievement, which had 23.5 per cent approval but 38.2 per cent disapproval. The personal pathway recommendation had 23.5 per cent approval but 38.6 per cent disapproval, and project learning had 16.8 per cent approval but 44 per cent disapproval.

The fact that 57.6 per cent of respondents disagreed with the proposal to reduce examinations highlights to me a worrying situation whereby the teachers who have to implement the changes and who know the current position in our classrooms regarding getting a proper blend of educational options for our children and young people are perhaps not as comfortable with the recommendations that the independent review has highlighted.

The motion refers to the

“need to make significant progress”

and

“agrees that these reforms must be taken forward with young people and teachers, with changes clearly understood by parents, carers, employers and further and higher education institutions”.

Given that assurance in the Government’s motion, it is imperative that the concerns of almost 10,000 teachers and people who are working in the education process are taken into consideration. I urge the Scottish Government to listen to those trusted professionals who are working in Scotland’s schools on the adoption of any proposed new approaches.

I will also mention the need for business contributions as a matter of urgency. As I said, the issue was mentioned. It is important that we ensure that changes towards modular courses and practical education in our schools open doors for onward employment and positive destinations instead of sending children and young people down an educational cul-de-sac.

Too many times, employers resort to examination results or further education certificates and degrees because they highlight an ability to work through a problem, a tenacity of character and a sustained work ethic that is essential for successful employment. However, those are not the only qualities admired by businesses. We have the opportunity to truly reform, and, if we include employers with the same gravitas as our college and university sectors, we will certainly find greater buy-in and a more positive move towards the essential parity of esteem that so many of the teachers agreed with.

I would really like to know more about the next steps. I accept that the final page of the report on the results of the consultation mentions the debate. However, we do not have a lot of detail, and I look forward to the Government’s formal response on how it plans to take forward the reviews. I know that that is coming. In particular, considering the percentage of teachers who are not in agreement with the initial recommendations, engagement has to be part of the way forward.

As with many things, how implementation progresses is paramount to success. It is time for action. Our children, young people, employers, colleges and universities deserve nothing less.

17:20  

Time has been a key theme in the debate, and I recognise that the debate has been truncated because of other parliamentary business. I put on record my commitment to come back to Parliament to have a further, fuller debate, perhaps after the publication of the Government’s formal response to the review, as was outlined.

I also commit to engaging with the Opposition more generally outwith the chamber along with my officials, as we did last week, because that will help to inform the process as we move forward. We have a great deal of consensus in the Parliament on education reform, to touch on Martin Whitfield’s point. I am keen to solidify that opportunity more formally and more regularly.

Mr Whitfield also spoke about the tensions with the introduction of curriculum for excellence. I hope that he still has a copy of his green folder, as I do. However, I understand some of the challenge that is inherently attached to educational reform. We need to be mindful of the potential pitfalls of that, as I outlined in my opening speech.

I will respond to some of the comments from members in the debate, which was positive and helpful. At times, undoubtedly, there was challenge. I welcome the challenge from Oliver Mundell. I agree with many of the points that he made about project-based learning, broader achievement and how that might be accredited in the future. We need to be mindful of equity issues, which have been a challenge. That was discussed by the review group in relation to the approach that Professor Hayward has taken throughout the review.

Liam Kerr rightly noted that there is room for different views on the recommendations. He spoke about the Government’s survey. It is important to reflect the range of different views that exist. The challenge from the profession has been reflected to us because the profession will always think about the practicalities of enacting reform and what it means in classrooms. We need to ensure that our teachers are part of the process, but we also need to listen to them. That is exactly why I built in the additionality to give teachers the opportunity to contribute and for us in the Government to hear their views and better reflect that in the formal response.

Mr Kerr touched on apprenticeships in his region. I would be more than happy to engage with him on a visit, if he is offering that, to look at the work that is being done on developing the young workforce in his area. Indeed, Mr Dey might wish to take up that kind offer.

Mr Kerr also spoke about some of the inequity issues that Oliver Mundell touched on. We need to be mindful of those, particularly in relation to the personal pathway element.

Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the compelling case for change. I hear two views on that. I hear one strong and compelling case for change and another view from the teaching profession in the survey that we published yesterday, which is to be mindful of the current challenges in the system. Those two things need to be balanced. However, we built in additionality in the previous year, and now is the time to move forward.

Ms Duncan-Glancy also spoke about the importance of splitting the inspectorate function from Education Scotland. I will bring forward legislation to that end later this year. However, on Willie Rennie’s points in relation to the national agencies, there is an opportunity to ensure that Education Scotland works better and more closely alongside the teaching profession to provide support where it is needed.

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention, although I ask her to forgive me, because she had moved on slightly to Willie Rennie’s point. Does she also accept that it is important to split the accreditation and awarding function from the new qualifications body?

Ms Duncan-Glancy knows that the Government does not support that approach. That has been outlined in our approach thus far. However, I look forward to engaging with her on the substantives of the legislation when it is introduced in due course. I was reflecting recently on the role of school in that regard and more generally post-Covid. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice, talked about the fraying link between home and school post-Covid. It is important that we reset that relationship with the school and with our parents, particularly in relation to the reform of the qualifications system.

There was a discussion about the range of qualifications in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s contribution. The point that I made in my initial remarks was that the plethora of different qualifications that currently exist in the senior phase can be confusing for many young people. We need to declutter and rationalise that offer, which is one of the key recommendations from Professor Hayward’s review, so that our young people can see those pathways more clearly and identify opportunities accordingly.

Willie Rennie spoke about the pressure in the system at the current time, and I absolutely accept what he said. I also agree with him that the status quo cannot hold. The past year has been important in allowing us to capture teacher views and to hear a contrasting view about some of the recommendations. The words that I used in the chamber before Christmas were that the status quo cannot hold. That was about the challenge that was presented to the Government in relation to the programme for international student assessment statistics, but I think that, more generally, we need to move forward now.

It was interesting to hear Mr Rennie’s views on the two-plus-two-plus-two model. It took me back to my time on the Education and Skills Committee in the previous parliamentary session, when we debated the issue at length with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s predecessor, who might have had a different view. Mr Mundell might also remember some of those conversations about subject choice. That speaks to the practicalities of how we timetable curriculum change. We need to be mindful of what it means for our teachers. That is why there is a degree of hesitancy in the profession at the current time, because teachers are always thinking about how such things will work in practice in the classroom.

Does the cabinet secretary think that the inconsistency between one school and another and between local authorities on that split is adding to the difficulties of making sure that we raise standards throughout?

Undoubtedly, there are different approaches. One of the key strengths of curriculum for excellence was meant to be that it allowed for local decision making in local schools. However, if Mr Rennie is asking for the Government to give more of a direction on how many subjects a school should teach, perhaps we should have another debate on that. More generally, we need to reflect that there are inequities in terms of entitlements across the system at the current time. The language of entitlements that Professor Hayward uses in the report is interesting, because we know that there is variation across the system at the current time, so perhaps we need to give more firm guidance on that. I do not think that it would be my role as cabinet secretary to provide that direction to schools, but we need to think about how Education Scotland could support a more equal system across the board, because this is fundamentally about the entitlements of our young people and ensuring that they all have access to the full suite of qualifications that Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about.

I am conscious of the time.

Ivan McKee spoke about the importance of meta skills and knowledge for employers and a number of other members also touched on that this afternoon. One of the key drivers of curriculum improvement has been ensuring that the role of knowledge is better reflected. Although Mr Mundell might think that I do not listen to Lindsay Paterson, I broadly agree with him on the point about knowledge in the curriculum, which is why we are taking forward this work on curriculum improvement.

The points that Roz McCall made on the involvement of business and how we can use business expertise to inform our educational offer are important. As we heard from Mr McKee, business has a key role to play in qualifications reform. I know that it has many views on our current offer, and that is why we need to have a coherent offer. That has been one of the key messages that have come out of this afternoon’s debate.

Ross Greer cut to the heart of the challenge in relation to continuous assessment and high-stakes examinations, on which we continue to rely in Scotland at the current time—unlike many other countries, I should say. We heard from Karen Adam about the stress that that can create for our young people, but we should also reflect on the stress that it creates for our teachers. In my initial contribution, I talked about the reintroduction of some of the qualifications requirements that took place this year. I know that they are creating pressure in the system at the current time, and that is why I have asked the SQA to review and be mindful of those arrangements this year and to take that pressure into consideration in the grading approach that will be used in this year’s examinations.

I hear the challenge from Mr Mundell and others about project-based learning and programmes of learning, and I am live to those issues. However, I have outlined today where we can make progress and where we have been able to move forward at pace, specifically in relation to qualifications, which I think are important and allow us to identify opportunities while working with the profession.

The pandemic was undoubtedly an extraordinary time in all our lives. Our children lived through that period and they also had their education turned upside down. Our teachers stepped up and moved at pace to respond to a global emergency. Now is the time to recast our educational offer to ensure that it is fit for purpose for Scotland’s children and young people, to best equip them for life after school or whichever pathway they see fit to follow.