Chamber and committees

I want to pick up on the line of questioning that the convener started, about the change to the formula. Prior to the pandemic, we had what we were told was very limited progress against the Government’s targets on closing the attainment gap—those are Audit Scotland’s words.

We know that, following the pandemic, the gap in attainment between the richest and the poorest groups is the largest that it has ever been, and that it has grown significantly. We all recognise the impact of the pandemic on that gap, given its impact on our most deprived communities. Therefore, I find it a little bit surprising to hear our witness from Inverclyde Council talking about the council’s exit strategy. Surely the exit strategy should be to ensure that those kids have better attainment, rather than to ask ourselves how we stop spending money on it? I want to explore the rationale of that a little bit.

According to the committee’s papers, the reduction in Inverclyde is 47 per cent and the local authority area is consistently among the most deprived communities in Scotland. At the other end of the table is our witness from East Renfrewshire, which is consistently one of the most affluent local authority areas in Scotland, and its funding is up by 43 per cent.

We all recognise that what we might call hidden poverty exists in every community and that such figures mask numbers. By making this change, are we are moving away from using the rationale of severe multiple deprivation in communities and towards something more general? To me, that has been a founding principle of how we have dealt with poverty in Scotland over a generation—or, at the very least, how we have talked about poverty, as dealing with it is a different matter. Has that rationale changed? I ask Ruth Binks to start.

I am not sure that that answers my question about young people now—those who have left school.

I have one more specific question before I turn to Mark Ratter. Will you use PEF money to make up for cuts to SAC funding?

My question is at a slight tangent to the points about headship, but it is relevant to how the attainment challenge work is governed and run. We have talked about numbers, but data that was recently published in Tes magazine showed a significant decline in the number of deputes and others who actually want to become headteachers. You have talked about the work that is done with headteachers. Why are people less attracted to that job than they were previously?

[Inaudible.]—the cuts from SAC?

I found that really useful.

I have a question for Mr Lyons. For a long time, Glasgow was one of the most deprived communities in Scotland. Does the shift away from an analysis of multiple deprivation and extreme poverty to something that is more general across the country worry the local authority and you personally?

This subject comes up weekly in our committee meetings, and it came up again today in the evidence that we received regarding the attainment challenge. Additional support needs are an underlying issue in the performance of the education system across Scotland and pertain to some of the most vulnerable young people.

Given how often the issue comes up, it would be good if it were firmly on our work programme for the foreseeable future. Given the representations that I receive as a member, I think that it should come to the fore in our work programme, if we can find space for it. I recognise that our work programme is busy and that we would have to find space, but it is a recurring theme that comes up week after week.

All the evidence that we receive shows that it is a challenge for local authorities and families. I am keen, therefore, that we try to find space for it. I recognise that that might not happen in the coming weeks, but let us take suggestions on how we deal with it. I am very keen for us to do something about it.

I am content with that, convener. It sounds like a reasonable approach. The committee is pretty clear.

I will come in partly to give the deputy convener reassurance that I am not confused in the picture that I have in mind about the evidence that we have received. Additional support needs issues have come up in the context of Covid and in a variety of other contexts, including the institutional reviews that we are considering and in the evidence about Education Scotland. Those issues came up again in today’s evidence. As the convener has rightly said, it is the silver thread that runs through much of the evidence that we have taken over the past year. Those issues are not particular to Covid, although Covid has had a clear impact on young people with additional support needs.

That brings me to my point. I see the issue in a broader context. We must consider how the funding is allocated, which is part of the question. Has the Morgan review been implemented appropriately, and are we meeting the aspirations that were set out in it? A broader inquiry into that would be appropriate—I hear that all the time and there is a real need for it.

With that redirection from parts of the country where there is huge deprivation and significant challenges to those young people who are in poverty, is it not the case that those kids in some of the poorest communities are paying the price of helping the kids who are in rural poverty? Is it right that we should have that trade-off, one for the other?

Let us face it—for some of those children, it is.