Chamber and committees

I understand—or I think that I understand—the cabinet secretary’s point. I am not seeking, through amendment 304, to restrict an inspector’s ability to inspect schools in the way that they, as an independently operating agent, feel is appropriate to the establishment that they are in. However, there are some issues common to the education system that deserve a proper underpinning in statute to ensure that they are looked at and that there is an independent voice speaking truth to power—to Parliament and Government—about what is happening in our schools, without fear or favour.

I understand the discomfort about there being too much detail in the amendment, but if there is not sufficient understanding of what the detail leads to, we are no further forward. It is great that we will have an independent inspector. My party, among others, has campaigned for that development, which I think we welcome, but at the same time, we need to be sure that the inspections are of a nature and a culture, and have sufficient elements, to address the fundamental issues that we all know exist in the system.

I will move on to the next pillar, which is the morale and wellbeing of teachers. I know that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that is a fundamental issue, the root causes of which we would probably all broadly agree on. Including the morale and wellbeing of teachers is deliberate on my part. I believe that it is a necessary cultural intervention, which I will come back to with my later amendments.

I imagine that John Mason has a point, but, in effect, he makes my point for me, because it has now become a feature of teacher employment that a large number of teachers have no permanent employment contract. As I will come on to, that creates all kinds of problems for those professionals—they are professionals—who cannot get on with the rest of their lives. They cannot establish themselves financially, and they cannot apply for certain products that might require them to have a permanent position of employment.

I understand why John Mason offers his intervention, but my amendment is grounded in the experiences of teachers and covers an issue that we should address.

Amendment 304 also provides that an inspection must cover

“the number of teachers in the establishment who ... are completing probationary service, or ... are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.

Those issues have been well covered in the chamber and elsewhere.

Finally, the amendment states:

“such other matters as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.”

I am not seeking to be overly prescriptive, which is why that line in the amendment is included. I want the chief inspector to be fully independent and completely free to make observations and reports in relation to the broad remit that they will have in carrying out their function.

The first pillar of amendment 304 is

“the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies”.

I make no apology for raising the rising incidence of violence and disruption in Scottish schools, which is affecting staff and students. The Scottish media has recently reported a disturbing surge in classroom violence, including assaults on teachers, support staff and even other pupils. There are such headlines in all our news outlets—The Courier, the Daily Record and BBC Scotland all speak of a discipline crisis in schools, with staff describing their daily exposure to aggression and fear.

It is therefore vital that the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies are monitored and that—this is the critical point—good practice is shared and concerns are highlighted and remedied. I think that we all agree on the point, which I made in our earlier debate, that school leadership is a critical factor in the learning environment, particularly for discipline. It is therefore a crucial observation that school discipline is contingent on the quality of the learning environment, which is the second part of amendment 304, so it ought to be at the forefront of consideration during an inspection.

Education is not only about academic performance; it is about the development of healthy and resilient young people. That is what the curriculum for excellence and the pillars are all about. Concerns arise about whether the learning environment is dealing with the whole person, rather than just one aspect. I acknowledge that that is the danger of league tables, which highlight one aspect of a school’s performance, perhaps without any recognition or cognisance of the other issues that create a holistic learning environment.

The recent mental health crisis among young people has brought the issue into stark relief. Multiple reports across all forms of media have highlighted increased numbers of referrals to child and adolescent mental health services, long waiting times for mental health support and a growing number of pupils disengaging from school altogether. We have frequently discussed non-attendance at school, which is at critical levels. School staff who are already overstretched are often the first responders to mental distress, but they are rarely recognised or supported in that role. Those factors all contribute to the learning environment.

An inspection framework that ignores wellbeing is therefore out of step with the reality in schools and the priorities, as I understand them, of Scottish Government policy, including the national performance framework. By including wellbeing explicitly in the inspection criteria, amendment 304 will ensure that we evaluate not just what is taught but how young people experience their education. Are they safe? Are they supported? Are they thriving?

I wish to say some words about why I felt the need to lodge amendment 304 in the first place. I think that many members will sympathise with the reasoning as to why these are salient issues in our education environment.

Amendment 304 states:

“An inspection under subsection (1) must include an assessment of, and any recommendations for improvements relating to ... the implementation and effectiveness of discipline policies ... the quality of the learning environment ... the support provided to persons with additional support needs, including access to appropriate resources and specialist support ... the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff ... whether the number of teachers and staff in the establishment can meet the needs of the persons undertaking a qualification in that establishment ... the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment ... the number”—

I am happy to.

Amendment 304 refers to the complement of staff available to meet needs. An issue that comes up quite frequently—which I know Martin Whitfield will be aware of—is that, in many schools, it is felt that there are not sufficient numbers of classroom assistants. The intention behind that element of my amendment is to give the inspector the independence to be able to look at all those issues, and to put that in statute so that they are looked at very deliberately.

Returning to what I was saying about wellbeing, I do not know whether I need to stress this—I am sure that every member of the committee will already appreciate it—but, if schools are not safe environments for teaching and learning, every other objective of Scottish education will be jeopardised. Improvement, attainment and inclusion all depend on calm, secure and respectful classrooms.

I am not suggesting a return to punitive models of inspection; instead, amendment 304 would insist that inspectors asked the right questions. Are staff safe? Are learners being protected? Is disruption being addressed? Are the causes being tackled systemically? Those are the questions that I believe we should be enshrining in law.

I will move on quickly to talk about curriculum for excellence, which was designed with a focus on the four capacities. I believe that my amendment underpins that approach. The third pillar of amendment 304 is the requirement that inspections evaluate how well the education that is provided meets the needs of learners with additional support needs. That brings us back to Martin Whitfield’s intervention, so let me address the issue again.

This is not some vague generality; it goes to the heart of the national mission for excellence and equity in education. Across Scotland, however, there is mounting concern that that mission is falling short in practice. Audit Scotland’s report, “Improving outcomes for young people through school education”, which was published in 2021, made it clear that there is significant variation in outcomes between schools, councils and demographic groups; indeed, later reports have made the same point repeatedly.

That all points to the need for inspections to look not just at policy implementation or compliance with frameworks but at whether schools are actually meeting the specific and diverse needs of their pupils. Are disadvantaged learners receiving the support that they need? Are looked-after children being prioritised? Are learners with English as an additional language being included meaningfully?

I see the role of the inspector as speaking truth to power. I mentioned Government and Parliament, but any stakeholders, including local authorities and teaching unions, should listen to a voice of authority that reflects the reality that the inspector finds and reports. That is the voice of authority that an independent chief inspector ought to have, hence the consideration of culture, because it is a cultural issue.

George Adam’s intervention is very helpful, because it adds weight to my concerns about frequency. Even an outstanding school in England is inspected every four to five years.

I am always reassured when I hear ministers say that they are not seeking power to dictate. [Laughter.] I still harbour a concern, but I am willing to go along—

As amendment 337 is consequential on my amendment 304, which I did not move, I will not be moving it, either.

I will restrict my remarks to amendments 346 and 347, both in my name.

I will again speak to the importance of robust and regular reporting on the overall performance of Scotland’s education system. My amendments go to the heart of what accountability in education should mean. They are about ensuring that the new system of education governance established by the bill does not just monitor individual schools but keeps a watchful, transparent eye on the system as a whole.

Amendment 346 would place a duty on the chief inspector to publish a comprehensive national-level report every year, assessing the overall performance of the education system in Scotland. Those reports would have to include a summary of the findings of the inspections carried out during the reporting period in relation to the performance of the Scottish education system, an assessment of the aims of current education policy in Scotland, the implementation of current education policy in Scotland and any recommendations on education policy and its implementation.

The amendments are not about adding layers of bureaucracy; they are about anchoring our system in evidence, openness and long-term thinking. Without periodic national-level assessments of performance, we cannot claim to be running a genuinely accountable system.

The chief inspector will have privileged insight into what is happening across all sectors of education. They will have access to the full range of inspection data, thematic reviews, stakeholder feedback and trends in quality assurance. That position carries a national responsibility, and the system must report not only on individual establishments, but on patterns, progress, gaps and risks.

As things stand, Education Scotland publishes an annual report, but it is often descriptive and selective. The new chief inspector, as established by the bill, must be required to go further. They must tell the full story of Scottish education—its strengths, its weaknesses and its trajectory. Amendment 346 would mandate that responsibility. That is entirely consistent with the wider vision laid out in the Muir review, which called for clearer structures, better accountability and a renewed focus on improvement across the system. It also aligns with recommendations from the OECD review of curriculum for excellence.

In short, our national education system must be able to see itself clearly. We must be able to measure where we are, track where we are going and reflect on how we are doing. Such a report would also allow Parliament to engage more constructively with education. Too often, debate about our schools is driven by newspaper headlines, isolated statistics or anecdote.

Amendment 346 would allow the chief inspector to include in their report such themes or areas of focus as they judged relevant. That is important, because education is a dynamic, evolving field, and new challenges emerge. For instance, digital learning, post-Covid recovery, additional support needs and regional disparities might all merit special attention at different times, and amendment 346 would give the chief inspector the flexibility to spotlight those issues in a national context.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the proposal is not inconsistent; rather, it is in line with international comparators. In jurisdictions such Ontario, New Zealand and Finland, regular system-wide reports are published by independent bodies, and those reports are used to inform strategy, promote transparency and support dialogue between Government, the profession and the public. I believe that Scotland should be no different.

Finally, I note that these amendments would be not just a technical improvement but a statement of intent. They would say that we believe in evidence over spin, in scrutiny over secrecy, and in the power of democratic accountability to drive improvement. They would say that we are not afraid to ask hard questions, to look honestly at performance and to act on what we learn. Amendments 346 and 347 are not just amendments to the bill; they are an invitation to build a culture of learning at every level of our education system, including the Government. They reflect the values of professionalism, honesty and service, and they would give the chief inspector a national role worthy of the trust that the public place in Scottish education. I urge the committee to support both amendments.

I move amendment 346.