Chamber and committees

I wonder if I can return briefly to the engagement between you and Scottish ministers. Prior to the statement that Angela Constance made in the chamber in reference to Liam Kerr’s amendment, did she or any other Scottish minister contact you at any point to ascertain your view on using that quote? I just want to check. At any point, did anyone contact you for your view on that?

I think that everyone would share that view about the importance of pace and of getting to the detail. That is why I was concerned to read on Monday reports that the four inspectorates were, to some extent, not aware of this review group or of the work that was going to be done and what they were going to be asked. Indeed, I think that the Care Inspectorate said that it learned of the group only when the cabinet secretary referred to it in the chamber. Is that your understanding?

Is it fair to say that you would expect clear terms of reference and clear guidance to be given to those inspectorates, and that that will perhaps be part of your role?

In your view, who is leading this process? Are Scottish ministers giving direction to the inspectorates, or is there one person who is leading it? There is an assumption that you are doing so, to some extent.

Good morning. When John Swinney was Covid recovery secretary, he said that recovery in our schools was the Government’s immediate priority. My understanding is that that pledge related to the lifetime of the parliamentary session, of which we are now at the end. What was your understanding of that pledge?

It is interesting, because when we had an exchange on this following your statement in the chamber last week, I raised the issue of the chasm in the attendance numbers that exists in a lot of places. I referred to South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. South Ayrshire, because of its demographics, has a high level of attendance, while East Ayrshire, which has a very different set of demographics in some ways, has a very low level of attendance. Your response to me at that point was that that was a local authority issue.

This morning, you have referred to your frustration about there being 32 different local authority approaches, but you also referenced the leadership of Education Scotland and your role as cabinet secretary in leading some of that change. It would therefore be useful to hear that you accept that you have a responsibility for leading some of the work on reducing absences, particularly persistent absences. What more can the Government do with its important convening power?

Your exchange with Mr Greer was interesting, although I appreciate that we do not have time to get into the complexities of education reform and how 32 local authorities work. However, for example, you decided not to move ahead with regional improvement collaboratives for what I assume was a variety of reasons. They were collaborating on a range of issues, including the issue of how we ensure that young people are in our schools and classrooms and are learning. Could you reflect on some of that?

I am grateful. There was some useful content in that answer and the committee will want to look at it further in some detail.

Convener, I will turn to attainment briefly. The Government prefers a measure that combines an average figure across primary 1, primary 4 and primary 7. I suggest that that approach is questionable because, as we know, those are very different stages of a child’s development.

For example, I have raised concerns about numeracy in primary 4, and about the fact that, on those individual measures, the gap is very often widening or stagnating. With literacy and writing, we have seen a fairly flat line on the individual measures.

Is the cabinet secretary concerned that we are painting a fairly positive picture when we are not getting into the detail? At crucial stages such as primary 4, where we know that children are in a transitional phase in their primary education, we are maybe missing something.

Also, does she have a concern that, if rates are flatlining on things such as literacy and writing, by the time that children get to secondary, we will have to do a lot more and invest in things such as reading recovery and supporting children to continue some of what they have been doing in primary into the early years of secondary?

With respect, Ms Colvin, I am not sure why there were press statements on Monday—

So you are not clear why the inspectorates said that.

It is clear from that exchange that there is confusion, and I am sure that the committee will want to return to the agencies to understand exactly their view of the comments that they made on Monday.

To return to the cabinet secretary’s answer, I think that part of the problem is that, if something is everyone’s responsibility, it can sometimes become nobody’s responsibility, to some extent. I think that that is what victims are expressing.

Cabinet secretary, can you reflect on whether an independent review, chaired by someone like Alexis Jay, would be the appropriate way to show that there is someone who is leading? Alexis Jay, in her comments to me this morning, said that she is not leading the review group. What is the view on whether we need an independent review with clear independent leadership?