Chamber and committees

I agree with the sentiment, and we spoke about culture at the meeting last week. However, setting expectations from the Parliament in the statute that we send to be signed by the King is where it starts. When we propose amendments that set out declarative expectations, therefore, we should take that very seriously.

I am responding to what the cabinet secretary said, because I strongly believe that the charters are not bureaucratic exercises—I do not think that she, or any one of us around the table, thinks that. They should be an articulation of the new relationship that they are seeking to establish between qualifications Scotland and the people whom it is intended to serve. Therefore, being serious about them, I am very keen, as I know that we all are, to go beyond warm words, hence the motivation—I think—behind so many of the amendments. The amendments have substance and they reflect on the realities of what went wrong with the SQA and why trust needs to be rebuilt, which is the issue to which we keep coming back.

I will quickly speak to amendment 270, to make a pitch for what is behind it, if nothing else. It would require that the teacher and practitioner charter explicitly describe how qualifications Scotland will uphold the principle of professional trust. That is much more than a slogan—it is a response to the consistent message, which was echoed in the Muir review and reinforced in the evidence that was submitted to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, that teachers have felt marginalised, dismissed and too often excluded from the decisions that directly affect their work and their learners. It was clear in the consultation for the Muir review that there was a need for the new national agency to work in a way that reflects a culture of trust, respect and professional autonomy.

Any attempt at a charter that fails to reflect that principle would fall short of its purpose. Amendment 270 would, I believe, ensure that the new body cannot simply adopt a vague or tokenistic statement of intent around how it works with Education Scotland and the profession; it must spell out how it will embed professional trust in its culture and operations.

That is all that I will say about amendment 270, but I want to speak in support of amendments 275 and 276, from Pam Duncan-Glancy. She is proposing a post-school learner and practitioner charter, and I strongly support the amendments because, as we all know, and as the cabinet secretary pointed out to me in response to my earlier amendments, qualifications from qualifications Scotland are not exclusively for school pupils. They will be delivered and experienced across Scotland’s colleges, community education centres, training providers and in many more settings. It is entirely reasonable to reflect those distinct experiences in a separate, bespoke charter—I think that that would make perfect sense.

The key, however, will be ensuring that that new charter is coherent and complementary, and not fragmented or contradictory. Learners and practitioners in post-school settings should enjoy the same respect, clarity of expectation and opportunities to influence the system as those in school settings. Their charter must be more than an afterthought; it must carry equal weight and scrutiny.

I also strongly support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 277. We discussed earlier my interest in term limitations, and I would support the idea that we reduce the review cycle of the charters from five years to three. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about expecting too much of children and young people, but it will be different sets of young people—I assume that it will not be the same set of young people, because age and chronology would suggest that that is not possible. The idea that Pam Duncan-Glancy puts forward strongly appeals to me: that if the period is five years, it will be outwith the experience of some of the children and young people who are going to go through the system.

That period is just too long, and we need to be more agile and responsive, in particular in the initial years of the life of qualifications Scotland. Regular review, informed by feedback from those who are directly affected, is key to ensuring that the charters do not just sit on a shelf and gather dust. They have to be living documents, and they will be only as relevant as we make them in that regard. I think that amendment 277 would do that.

I also agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy on her amendment 278. I have no idea whether or not Miles Briggs agrees with me on that, so I should say that these are my personal opinions. The amendment proposes that the statutory committees, such as the teacher and learner committees, should be formally consulted on any charter review. That is essential, and the amendment would provide for that. Those committees are meant to represent the voices of practitioners and learners and their role must be meaningful and continuous, and not limited to initial drafting.

I think that I have said enough about those specific amendments, and I have probably said enough about my amendment 270. I would be the first person to agree with any suggestion that everyone should agree something in common from all these different amendments, which I think is the broad thrust of the cabinet secretary’s intent. Anything that would give us something that is living, current and relevant, and that is grounded in accountability, trust and clear expectations, should command the support of not just the committee but the whole Parliament.

I am sorry, but might I ask George Adam what specifically would cause more confusion?

Yes.

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for his intervention, but I am not sure that, under the very simple terms of amendment 289 in my name, what he suggests is likely to arise. All that the amendment does is to seek to establish a single framework. It would give the SCQF Partnership the statutory role of establishing a single framework for Scotland’s qualifications; it then goes to say that the qualifications would do exactly as has been identified in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in this group. With such an approach, the levels and points would be indicated, which would give real clarity to learners as to what their qualifications stacked up to. As I will go on to say, it would make things very clear to employers, too.

The SCQF Partnership already fulfils that valuable role. I take the member’s point in that respect, but what I am trying to do is to create some clarity. I am not, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, trying to add confusion—I am trying to create crystal-clear clarity about what this body does and the value that it brings to the total education landscape in Scotland. I am trying to give the SCQF Partnership a clear and legitimate statutory role that aligns with the functions that it already performs in practice. I am not seeking to duplicate anything—I am just seeking to give crystal-clear clarity about what the SCQF Partnership does.

Coming back to John Mason’s point, I recognise that the partnership is a registered Scottish charity that performs critical work in benchmarking, recognising and comparing qualifications and ensuring that they align with recognised credit levels. Nevertheless, I think that its excellent work operates in a somewhat grey space. It is influential, yes, but it has no defined legal mandate. I do not think that that is sustainable, because—and here I go back to the findings of the OECD—we already have so many bodies. Let us give the SCQF Partnership the distinction of being recognised in law for the excellent work that it does.

That is what amendment 289 proposes to do: it proposes to give the SCQF Partnership formal responsibility for accrediting qualifications to ensure that they meet published requirements. Giving the partnership the responsibility for defining and comparing qualifications in Scotland by establishing a unified framework that assigns levels and credit points to learning programmes will ensure clarity, accessibility and transferability across the education and employment sectors. The amendment seeks neither to displace qualifications Scotland nor to duplicate its work. Instead, it strengthens a valuable partner and gives learners, providers and employers clarity and confidence that qualifications accredited through the SCQF are subject to transparent public standards and institutional governance.

I will move on very quickly to amendment 229, which relates to the definition and role of the SCQF in the bill. It appears designed to formalise the framework itself, which I would support, but it does not assign the functions in the way that my amendment 289 does. That is why I think that amendment 289 has some value in the context of this group. Amendment 229 is helpful, but, as I have said, it does not set out the bolder articulation of the purpose of the SCQF in the way that amendment 289 does.

I welcome amendment 231, although, again, I think that it would be helpful to have amendment 289 alongside it, for the sake of clarity.

Amendment 238 seeks to ensure that qualifications Scotland recognises the role of the SCQF. That already happens in practice, but the amendment gives it statutory backing. However, although I support its intent, I suggest that it would benefit from being nested within the more comprehensive structural definitions that I have included in amendment 289.

In conclusion, amendment 289 is a pragmatic proposal that seeks to give crystal-clear clarity to the education landscape when it comes to the salient institutions that learners, employers and others need to know about and appreciate. Being able to say what something does—I recall the old adage about something doing what it says on the tin—is what amendment 289 is all about. By creating a clear understanding of what organisations exist to do, it enhances coherence in the system and will make Scottish qualifications and the Scottish qualifications landscape more transparent, more navigable and more understandable, not just for professionals and institutions but, as I have said—and this is the critical group that I have in mind with amendment 289—for learners themselves.

I commend amendment 289 to the committee.

No. I think that my amendment 289 provides a framework that does not currently exist in statute. It creates clarity around what the different bodies do within the context of the bill that introduces qualifications Scotland. It explains what the roles of those different bodies are.

For example—and we will come on to this—there are, I think, enormous questions about the role and purposes of Education Scotland. I regularly ask people in education, “What is the point of Education Scotland? What does it do for you?” The truth of the matter is that I very rarely get any kind of answer that adds up to any value at all.

This is an unusual situation, as I am speaking after the cabinet secretary and have heard her assessment of my amendment.

My initial response is to suggest to the cabinet secretary that such is the poor precedent in terms of the experience that teachers have had with the SQA that putting things in the bill to reassure teachers, as one of the key constituent groups that will interact with the new body, may give people some hope that the bill is not just about changing the name on the door. That has been the focus of a lot of the concern about the bill as it was presented: that it was simply going to be an exercise in changing the brass plate.

That is my hope, too—

I was responding to that when you asked me to give way again.

I do not see how clarifying these roles does that. I think that Ken Muir’s point, which George Adam highlighted, was said in an earlier part of the bill process and was not related to what I am proposing. I am proposing adding the clarity that the OECD has highlighted is required. Ken Muir, in his report, suggests that we need to declutter the landscape and have clear understanding. I think that that aim is at the heart of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments as well.

For the record, I would like to say that I understand and fully accept what the cabinet secretary has said in relation to the wording of the amendment. Therefore, when the time comes, I will not move the amendment, because I will wait to see what comes of the discussions that the cabinet secretary has with Pam Duncan-Glancy in relation to her amendment 238.

I agree with what Pam Duncan-Glancy has said about the value of the SCQF Partnership. It is undoubtedly one of the treasures in the Scottish educational landscape. That is why I will be moving amendment 289 in my name. I will also touch on some of the other points that Pam Duncan-Glancy proposes in her amendments 229, 231, 238 and 354. The amendments in this group seek to clarify, codify and, in some instances, transform the role that the SCQF Partnership plays in the reformed landscape of Scottish qualifications.

My amendment 289 is an essential and constructive contribution to the bill. It introduces a distinct statutory framework for qualifications, to be housed within the existing SCQF Partnership.