Chamber and committees

It needs to be linked in.

Do you want to come in on that question, too, Alison?

We do not hear that, though, do we? The media constantly talk about how awful everything is.

When we talk about the Promise and children’s services, it is inevitably quite a busy landscape, and there are a lot of reasons for that. As somebody mentioned, that creates a bit of silo working. We have heard that it is not about a single person and that there is a need to work together.

My question is on data. In the previous evidence session, we talked a little about the fact that, although a lot of good work is going on, many of the elements are not talking to one another. We also heard about challenges related to children sometimes moving around different parts of the country, never mind within authorities. We have gaps in data, which impacts what children can access. Would it be helpful to have a single data point through which we can trace and track children through the system so that, no matter where they are or which individual in whatever service is dealing with them, we can see the child’s journey—if I can use that word—and what the child needs at the point when they present in whatever capacity?

I know that there would be General Data Protection Regulation—GDPR—considerations, but, with that kind of data, if every service was inputting it, obviously only accredited individuals and organisations would be able to access it, and that would be purely for the purpose of providing support at the point of need, which would sometimes be in critical or crisis moments and sometimes be about accessing practical services. Would that help?

Perhaps service users could link into the system and input the kind of information that you are talking about.

I was going to ask how the figure of 90 minutes was arrived at—according to the written evidence, it comes from an average of 11 additional hours being worked. However, I am not going to do that, because I know what you will say.

Instead, I would like to ask about staffing. I enjoyed your comments about how qualified teachers are, because I was an English teacher for 25 years, so I was basking a wee bit there. I know that you will not want to be drawn into this, because it is the elephant in the room, but there is a hierarchy of subjects in schools. We talk about that in every staff room, and pupils and parents talk about it as well, but trade unions—for reasons that I understand—do not talk about it. Everybody knows about it, but nobody talks about it outside staff rooms and homes. It is probably fair to say that, although all teachers work hard and want the best for their pupils, the workload is not evenly spread—that is an evident truth. I will not ask you to comment on that, because I know that you will not want to.

Last week, we explored the issue of chronic subject specialism shortages, which David Barnett alluded to—and that is before we get to the reduction in class contact time. Those shortages are in key areas such as physics, chemistry, English and maths, and I think that there is a problem with recruitment because of pay. I know that teaching is a vocation, but, at the end of the day, people have bills to pay and teaching cannot compete with industry for the opportunities that are available to graduates, particularly in maths and physics. Some graduates will come into teaching regardless, but that would explain some of the chronic shortages.

If we are serious about reducing class contact time, we need to fill those gaps, which already exist and will only be exacerbated by reducing class contact time. We are talking about a marketplace, and this is a case of supply and demand. Should we not at least consider the possibility of offering pay differentials? I am not talking about golden handshakes of £2,000 a year—that does not do anything—but offering differentials in pay for locations and subjects that are very hard to fill.

Andrea Bradley, you can go first.

One thing that clearly will happen in the short term, as we see a reduction in class contact time, is some school subjects disappearing altogether or not being available to first and second years. I am thinking immediately of science, because we cannot fill those posts. What is your solution to that? Obviously, you will not say, “We’ll not bother doing the reduction in class time, then.”

How would you see that panning out? Even if we solve the recruitment crisis in those very hard-to-fill locations and subjects, that will not happen in the short term. I am sceptical about that. Andrea Bradley talked about peaks and troughs, but we have always been short of science and English teachers, and we can evidence that through the difficulty in securing supply teachers in those subjects. If we reduce class contact time, what do we do about the physical lack of teachers in the locations and subjects where we need them without impacting pupils?

I am segueing a bit here, but we are seeing real workforce challenges right across every part of the public sector today and that is going to impact everything that you try to do.

That would better inform everything that is being done.

Does anybody else want to come in on that?