Chamber and committees

No, it is fine. I am just trying to get my head around the questions. Thank you.

I do not have a numerical target just now, but I have a target in principle, which is for teaching to be a sustainable profession that people, should they choose it, can enjoy throughout their careers. RCCT and teacher pay are important parts of that, as is the national staged intervention model as an approach to try to simplify and clarify what is required of a teacher in order to move a young person through the support that they need. We are taking all those things together to try to make teaching an attractive profession that people can sustain.

We have talked a lot in this meeting about how RCCT is a significant investment. It will not cost as much as COSLA has projected, but it is significant. That is because the Government believes in supporting a well-functioning teaching profession in which people can be recruited where we need them and retained throughout their careers. That investment is a big vote of confidence by the Government in the profession.

On your last question, that will very much be decided on a school-to-school and local authority-to-local authority basis in the same way that schools currently manage non-contact time. Many schools might be able simply to boost the approach that they already take to managing non-contact time.

I do not think that we should assume that RCCT will necessarily mean having significantly more teachers in front of a class. After all, it is just a short period of time that we are talking about and, as I have said, it could simply be an extension of how non-contact time is already dealt with, or it could mean more specialised opportunities.

The issue of the handover, and ensuring that it works well for children, particularly those with additional requirements, is very much the subject of a live discussion. It is very dependent on and bound up with the work that we are doing just now with COSLA on producing plans that reflect local circumstances, and we can, through the SNCT, ensure that the proper procedures are in place.

I will have a look, or perhaps you could send me the proposition and the response that you received. There are inherent problems with having 32 different approaches to employing probationers, which we recognise at a national level. Rightly, it makes it difficult for me to be in front of a committee and to try to discharge my responsibilities for teaching employment when 32 local authorities employ teachers and decide themselves how to organise them. You are absolutely right to talk about when probationers can secure paid work but, equally, permanence is not where we want it to be for probationers who are finding their first job and have temporary contracts.

There is a tension between my desire to respect the fact that local authorities are employers and have to do it their way and my equal responsibility to probationers and teachers in Scotland; I would like it to be much better and PSR provides opportunities for that. We have not talked about it much, but I would like schools to be more empowered on employment. A couple of weeks ago, we published John Wilson’s report, which we commissioned to look at reform in education. He remarked on the difficulties with employment and, equally, the need for schools to be empowered to take many of those decisions.

Every teacher is required to have had training in ASN in order to teach. That is done as standard. There will always be the case for support in the classroom to complement that, and to attend to a varied suite of needs. The classroom teacher can manage some of those themselves; others will frequently continue to require that additional support teacher. However, the point about PSR and the opportunity to do things differently is instructive, because, in my constituency surgeries, very frequently—well, maybe not very frequently, but from time to time—I have had teachers sitting in front of me in their different capacities, such as additional support for learning, or teaching in primary or secondary school, telling me that they struggle to grapple with the 32 different approaches to employment that currently operate in Scotland. It is just not efficient and it does not allow prospective teachers or additional support workers to move between areas, fill vacancies and respond to the need as it is.

Discussions are ongoing with COSLA, but, for example, if we were to move to that regional model of local authorities, with a regional approach to education authorities, I can see that that would have benefits for the teaching workforce, whether someone was a teacher or working in additional support, because they would have much greater clarity over a larger area of what is needed, and where, and we would be able to direct people to that much more easily. That is just one way in which I think it could be better.

Yes, absolutely. I mentioned in response to an earlier question that £28 million—or is it plus one, so £29 million—?

It is a fair assessment of where we are at the moment. I have been candid with the committee that we are suffering underemployment with primary teachers, which is despite efforts to plan how many placements are required each year. The pupil roll in primary schools is declining, which will have an impact. As I reflected earlier, there are probably sufficient secondary teachers, but they are not spread across Scotland and there is a challenge with teachers in certain subjects. In response to Ms Gibson, I spoke about whether our bursary scheme could be targeted at both place and subject matter in order to try to address the situation.

I place a great deal of importance in our doing exactly what Katherine Sangster has set out when we look back. That is why I have been stressing today that monitoring will have to go alongside this work. As I said to Ms Ross, exactly how that monitoring will work will be developed with the SNCT.

However, we already use a number of metrics to indicate success in our education system, including final attainment. I also think that progress is important, as Ms Moodie and I discussed before. The metrics will differ between the primary and secondary sectors. At secondary level, we can also consider positive destinations and other aspects.

Whoever is education secretary at any given time has a very keen sense, informed by COSLA, ADES and the teaching unions—I also get this from the headteacher panel—regarding what is hindering and what is supporting success in schools. I will ensure that monitoring arrangements are developed for RCCT that help us to maintain that keen sense of things.

The answer is no, there is no watering down. It was very deliberate that, in my opening remarks, I spoke about children growing up loved, safe and respected.

Thank you for the question—I will take both parts separately, starting with the last part on metrics and the potential for things to grow. I have been clear that we need to monitor the implementation of RCCT, and assure ourselves that it is having a positive impact on learning and teaching. We will discuss that through the SNCT, which stands for—