Chamber and committees

Willie Rennie has a brief question.

I welcome our second set of witnesses. We are joined by Laurence Findlay. He is the director of education and children’s services with Aberdeenshire Council but, today, he is representing the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, which we will refer to as ADES this morning. We are also joined by Anne Keenan, assistant secretary with the Educational Institute of Scotland; Graham Hutton, general secretary with School Leaders Scotland; and Stuart Hunter, president of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association.

I thank you all for joining us this morning. I apologise for the shite—the slight delay—[Laughter.] That is worse than “sausages”. I hope that the Official Report picks that one up. Apologies. I wonder what will be picked up. We will move straight to questions from members, just to get away from me and my red face. Pam Duncan-Glancy is first.

I am sorry—it is Liam Kerr first.

It is okay—you tripped up, although not in the same way that I did.

I am delighted to be speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee about our inquiry into additional support for learning. I thank my colleagues for their diligent work throughout our inquiry, as well as all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views. Special thanks go to the inclusion ambassadors that we met. They are a group of children and young people from across Scotland with a range of additional support needs who work with Children in Scotland to ensure that their views are heard in decision making relating to education.

In deciding what the inquiry should cover, the committee was acutely aware of the work that was being done in the area and, not least, the report that was produced by Angela Morgan. We knew that the Scottish Government was planning to update its additional support for learning action plan and code of practice and we wanted to ensure that the main issues around ASL provision in Scotland’s schools were both highlighted to the Scottish Government and addressed in the refreshed plan and code of practice.

As it is 20 years since the creation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, it feels like a good time to reflect on what progress has been made and explore what remains to be done. The committee agreed to focus on three main themes, which overlap to some extent—the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming, the impact of Covid-19 on additional support for learning, and the use of remedies as set out in the 2004 act. We launched our inquiry in October 2023. We issued a call for views and received over 600 responses, which came mainly from individuals who had faced barriers in relation to ASL provision.

Currently, over a third of pupils have an additional support need, and many of those pupils will require additional support for their learning, so we cannot ignore the enormity of the situation. At the outset of the inquiry, the committee was keen to hear directly from those with personal experience of how the 2004 act and the presumption of mainstreaming have been working in practice. We spoke to pupils, parents, carers and teachers at informal participation sessions in February and March this year. We then took formal evidence throughout March, before publishing our report in May.

Our report makes clear that the committee was extremely concerned by what it heard regarding people’s negative personal experiences of ASL provision and the detrimental impact on some pupils with ASN, their parents and their carers. We commend the work that teachers and support staff have done in providing support for pupils with ASN, but we were concerned to hear of the pressures that they face, which are leaving them feeling overwhelmed and burnt out. The committee was also concerned to hear parents and carers describe themselves as fighting for the right resources to be put in place for their children. We find that wholly unacceptable.

On the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming, the committee is only too aware that the Scottish Government’s getting it right for every child policy is intended to provide all children and young people and their families with the right support at the right time in order that every child and young person in Scotland can reach their full potential. Sadly, that is not what we heard was happening for many pupils with ASN. We were alarmed to hear that there is strong evidence that the majority of ASN pupils are not having their needs met.

Although we agree with the policy intention behind the presumption of mainstreaming, as set out in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, we found that the gap between the policy intention and how it has been implemented in practice is intolerable. Parents and carers told us of their difficulties in getting the correct support for their child and of the misconception that a formal diagnosis is not only desirable but necessary in order to obtain that support. We recommended

“that the Scottish Government provides clarity in the Code of Practice on how support should be provided to pupils with ASN whether or not they have a formal diagnosis, including from agencies other than education.”

The Scottish Government has confirmed that a formal diagnosis or identification is not required for a child or young person to receive appropriate support for their learning. The Government committed to providing further clarity on the issue in its refresh of the supporting children’s learning code of practice.

The fact that there are long delays in accessing specialist provision within a mainstream setting is another issue that was raised by many witnesses. They include delays in accessing child and adolescent mental health services support and speech and language therapy. We recommended that the Scottish Government works

“closely with bodies such as NHS Scotland, the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, CAMHS and COSLA, to identify the causes of such lengthy delays and ensure that a more joined up approach to providing specialist support within mainstream settings is adopted in future.”

We also heard concerning evidence about neurodivergent pupils who were masking at school—that is, pupils who expend a lot of energy trying to modify their behaviour in an attempt to mask the true extent of their neurodivergence. Inevitably, that means that, when they get home, they are completely overwhelmed and exhausted, which places huge additional pressure on them and their families. We say in our report that much more must be done to understand the prevalence of masking in schools

“and the effect that that is having on pupils’ school and home lives, in particular the impact on parents and carers”.

The Scottish Government has agreed to undertake a literature review on masking in children and young people with ASN and to identify relevant theories and methods and gaps in existing knowledge, with the aim of strengthening the existing resources. We are pleased that our report has helped to make that happen and we await the results of that literature review with interest.

We were concerned to hear that pupils for whom a mainstream setting is not appropriate do not always have access to adequate specialist school provision near them. That means that, through no fault of their own, some pupils have to spend a significant time travelling to and from school each day. We concluded that,

“Given the increase in the number of ASL bases and units within schools in the 20 years since the 2004 Act was passed”,

the Scottish Government should undertake

“a full review of placing requests to specialist services to consider how the current regime is working in practice”.

As part of our inquiry, we heard that the physical environment of a school can have a huge impact on pupils with ASN. For example, many recently-built schools have been designed in such a way that they are not accessible to all. Large campuses with open-plan designs can act as a barrier to learning for pupils with ASN, and particularly for pupils who are neurodivergent. On the existing school estate, we were told of many relatively inexpensive adaptations that can be made to improve accessibility for pupils with ASN. We recommended that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust

“reassess the support and advice provided to local authorities to ensure that schools are designed as accessible and welcoming environments for all”.

In responding to our concerns regarding the physical environment, the Scottish Government told us that, with the Scottish Futures Trust, it has developed a 10-step plan to address the issues that the committee raised, and that work will include stakeholder involvement. We hope to be updated on that early next year.

We also looked at the impact of Covid-19 on ASL. Witnesses spoke of the anxiety and difficulties that pupils with ASN experienced in attending school post-pandemic. We heard that some pupils with ASN were not coping and their needs were not being met, which could really impact on their behaviour and wellbeing. The resulting behaviour is often disruptive and detrimental, and it can not only impact negatively on the pupil with ASN, but affect the learning and mental wellbeing of other pupils in the classroom. Sometimes, that can lead to the pupil with ASN being alienated.

We also heard that a disproportionate number of pupils with ASN were being excluded from school. We recommended that further work be undertaken by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to establish the reasons for that and what can be done to make improvements. The Scottish Government accepted that recommendation and said that it was engaging with COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and Education Scotland to consider it in detail.

Finally, the inquiry explored the use of remedies for parents and carers when things are not working well. I do not have time to cover all of what we heard, but I highlight that a number of witnesses told us that the current ASL landscape could be cluttered and confusing.

As a result of our report, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills committed to looking at the communication mechanisms with families in relation to the rights of parents, carers and pupils and to parental and pupil involvement in the decision-making process.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s 2nd Report, 2024 (Session 6), Additional Support for Learning inquiry (SP Paper 585).

Cabinet secretary,

“Health and social care is a disgrace.”

Those are the words of my constituent Eric Drummond, who called me in a state of distress yesterday. He is largely housebound and has issues with his prostate that have left him incontinent. We heard today about putting people at the centre of the plan, so that when they need support they receive the care that is right for them, in the right place at the right time. However, Mr Drummond will have to wait 16 weeks for a nurse specialist to visit him. How will the plan deal with the challenges ahead when the health service is not prepared for tomorrow—let alone winter?

Cabinet secretary, in your statement you said that you believe that a new independent inspectorate will have a key role to play in driving improvement. At committee yesterday, not one of the witnesses who appeared shared that view. They questioned the independence of the new chief inspector, suggesting instead that it should be a non-ministerial office that reports to Parliament rather than to ministers. Those witnesses are concerned that the role appears to be report orientated and to focus on the inspection of establishments. Critically, the definition and purpose of inspection is missing.

Do you agree that the legislation needs to be amended to deal with the serious flaws, to ensure the effectiveness of the chief inspector role from day 1, and to ensure that what you have outlined here today will be achieved?

I have a brief supplementary on that. How would you go about doing that? What would you do to ensure that good appointments are made?

Perhaps that is your pitch to be on the panel, Professor Donaldson [Laughter.]

I come now to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

I note for the record that Mark Priestley was nodding away in agreement to that.

Over to you again, Evelyn Tweed.