Chamber and committees

I may bring in Sue Macfarlane, in a second, if she has further comments. The information that we have indicates that an increase in non-completion is related to the pandemic. There would seem to be a problem. It is great to hear that there may be some evidence that those things are being tackled. However, it would seem that the non-completion rates have remained high—I would go as far as to say that they have remained very high—for a very long time. It is quite difficult to draw a comparison, but the best information that we have indicates that the completion rate in England is far higher. Does the sector recognise that?

The current operational context is very important when we are reflecting on this. In our previous meeting, we took evidence from the SQA regarding outcomes. I was keen to understand the issues relating to lost learning. Students have had a reduced curriculum and have not had the experiences that they might have had. Referring to what the college sector could do in relation to lost learning, Robert Quinn from the SQA said in response to one of my questions:

“I feel strongly that it should be well placed to provide support.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 7 September 2022; c 12.]

Has the SFC asked you to give any indication of what additional support you can provide to make up for lost learning at any point?

That is useful and specific.

I have a question on the widening access agenda, which connects to Sue Macfarlane’s comment about how we measure success. My understanding is that the widening access agenda is judged by inputs—in essence, the number of students who are recruited rather than those who complete. Would we have been better talking about the number of those who complete, at least in addition to the number who are recruited?

I have talked about non-completion sitting at 27 per cent but, for students in the widening access cohorts—those from the lowest SIMD areas—that soars to 36 per cent. Collectively, we understand some of the reasons for, and challenges around, that situation but, on how we understand success, would reporting on completion figures for the widening access cohorts be an appropriate metric to add?

I thank everyone for today’s evidence so far, which has been pretty concerning but has provided us with a lot of clarity on some of the impacts. It has been very useful.

I will touch on research on completion rates, which has been presented to us by our colleagues from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Before the pandemic, non-completion of courses was around 24 per cent but, post-pandemic, that has risen to 28 per cent. What is the sector doing to deal with that?

Angela, is it a yes or a no from you?

That would be critical to ensuring that we have a breadth of voices represented. There are voices that feel that they have not had enough representation in the education system and some that feel that they are well represented in it. It is important that we capture good practice and spread it as widely as possible.

Connect is well placed to do that form of engagement work. That has formed a central part of the early discussions we have had with the organisation about how we ensure that it is a representative voice and that we draw as widely as possible on different individuals.

Its role in the CPG is not to directly reflect those views; it would be to provide the secretariat function and to try to bring other people to the table. Connect has its own purpose as a group, but the role that it would play as the secretariat would be in helping to make the CPG work and in helping us with broader engagement.

Connect undertakes wide surveys. It engages and has online discussion groups and communities on families’ engagement in education. It has a good reach into many parts of the country and to a large number of individuals. It is fair to say that the nature of its work—talking about how parents and families can become involved in education—probably surfaces more problems at times. It surfaces people who are frustrated about the need to engage in their young person’s learning and who perhaps find barriers. As I said to the convener, it is important that we draw on positive examples as well as people who find frustrations. That broader engagement is critical.

We need to get the cross-party group set up and running and engage formally with other stakeholders and groups that have an interest in the agenda. From the discussions that we have had, the topic has felt somewhat neglected. Sometimes, parents’ voices have not found a place within education policy discussion, and that is part of the issue. We need to raise the profile of it and bring a focus to it.

I would say that there is interest. I would be happy to hear directly the views of the members of this committee, but, because of the conversations that I have had with other members about their case loads and the number of people who address those issues with them, I think that there is a need and a demand and that the cross-party group would be well used.

In relation to what Mr Doris said, we could set some tests for what that demand looks like in a year’s time. If, in a year’s time, the forum was not working successfully and it was felt that it was duplicating other work, I would happily recognise that. However, the very reason for proposing the cross-party group is that families feel that they do not have a voice and are not represented in the broader discussion. Finding a place for that voice within the Parliament, in order to test that ground, would be the right thing to do.

At the very least, we should test to see whether there is demand for the group. I have always felt that, if something does not work, we should stop doing it. I do not think that we do that enough in public policy. Therefore, if this group does not have success, I do not think that the Parliament should persist with it in the long term. However, I think that, at this moment, it will give an opportunity to raise particular issues of concern, and we can see what life it will have after that.

Those are very pertinent points. Different local authorities use a variety of engagement mechanisms for families, and that practice varies from school to school, from institution to institution and from nursery to nursery. Different places have different approaches to how much the parents, guardians and families of young people are involved in their education. There are a plethora of approaches and a wide variety of practice across the country. It is partly about understanding what works and what is the best that can be achieved.

Although frustration comes with the difference in those practices, that is not to say that we should have a universal approach, because it is about understanding what works and where the success is. That presents a problem, and part of the focus of the group will be to understand what works and the extent to which we can encourage and recognise the primary role of the family as educators. It will also be about recognising that our young people spend far more of their time in the family home and learn far more there than they do in a formal setting, particularly in the early years.

In response to the point that Mr Mountain makes about outreach and how we engage with more remote and rural communities, I note that those areas will clearly face particular challenges that are different from those faced in urban environments in relation to the involvement of families in young people’s education. It would be absolutely right to address that issue in the group, so we must make sure that, as well as meeting in the Parliament building, we have accessible online meetings, which could be in a hybrid format. We should recognise that it is vital to give the forum the imprimatur of the Parliament and a formal setting where we can have those discussions.

On your first question, the answer is certainly yes. In a year, the involvement of other groups would be a signal of success and demand in the area. In order to understand what the broader demand is, I would be keen to set the group up and see whether there is the real demand that I believe there to be—and that other members have expressed to me that they, too, see—for a particular forum on these issues. Testing that demand through the establishment of the group would be the right thing.

I understand your point about the existence of other meetings and forums. However, within parts of the communities that we all represent, there is a frustration that parental voices are perhaps not given a high enough profile in the general discussion. As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee—as you are, Mr Doris—I think that we could perhaps reflect more broadly on that.

You cited a specific example of a recent meeting. I am not entirely clear about what was done. I could ask Connect whether it was aware of, and engaged in, that meeting. However, as I have said, it is not just about having a forum for Connect. The proposed group would be a specific forum for issues on long-term policy trends and the engagement of families in education policy and the education of their young people. Education is a broad issue that touches on many areas of policy, and there will clearly be different forums for it. Giving this topic specific focus would be the right thing to do.