Chamber and committees

Rather than transplanting people from elsewhere, although that is welcome—I am a transplant in my rural council area—you can grow your own, but that is quite challenging. For example, in my rural council area, and nationally, there is a shortage of computing teachers at secondary level, because we are not training as many as we need. However, if someone in my local area decided that they would like to become a computing teacher, they could not do a computing course at the local college. That immediately makes the options quite limited. What work is going on behind the scenes to ensure that there is access to training in rural areas, so that they can have a workforce in sectors in which we acknowledge there is a deficiency?

In their submissions to the committee, both ADES and COSLA highlighted the challenges that the proposal will bring for rural and island communities, given the existing recruitment challenges there. What steps have already been taken to address that and what more needs to be done to support those communities?

Thank you.

It is okay—I will save it for later, because it might fit in elsewhere.

I want to pick up on workforce planning around this. It strikes me that the supply teacher system is likely—in the interim, if not in the long term—to play a part in how we address the need for additional time out of classrooms. Wherever you put the boundaries, there will always be a challenge. There will always be somebody who lives near a boundary between local authorities, and that can be a bit of a barrier. At the moment, if a supply teacher is looking for supply work, they have to ring several different local authorities. That is a lot of work, even though they might be easily able to travel over that border or might have family or other personal connections in a nearby authority that would make it easier for them to work there. Has any thought been given to co-ordinating that aspect of workload in the workforce nationally, such that teachers can go on a national supply availability list?

I will quickly follow that up. It is interesting that the discussion is focused on prevention rather than on crisis intervention. I am mindful that we are carrying out pre-budget scrutiny work, and I am curious as to what budget decisions could be made that would most effectively shift resources from crisis intervention to prevention and whole family support. It is often the case that, when budgets are tight, crisis support is maintained and preventative work goes, which simply perpetuates the cycle. That has very much been the case over the past 20 years or so. What budget decisions would you like to see considered that might help to make that shift?

Thank you, convener—I want to look ahead. I am conscious that 2030 is before the end of the current session of Parliament, so I am keen that we look beyond that.

I am curious as to what long-term indicators you all think we should be tracking for care-experienced young people as they go through their lives. What would a Scotland that has fully realised the Promise look like in 2040? What is your vision for what will be happening 10 years after the Promise has been delivered, if it is delivered? What reforms should we, as a Parliament, be prioritising after 2030 to ensure that there is prevention and whole family support, and that we keep care-experienced young people at the centre?

I have tried to wrap several questions into one there. Overall, looking ahead, what do you feel is the future in this space beyond 2030?

I will go back to the point that you made at the start about assessment and the PISA results. I know that that is an international comparison, which is always difficult, but we can compare with our nearest neighbours. We are now performing significantly below England.

My question is about Scotland’s assessment programme. Why are we persisting with a system that is clearly not improving outcomes? Can we move to a system that is more about meeting the needs of pupils as they are? I absolutely agree that there should be a degree of standardisation, but it should be focused on the reporting and data end, rather than the measuring children end, if you see what I mean.

My colleague Ross Greer commissioned a report on testing, and the Mark Priestley report was issued last year, which very much emphasised my point. How are the PISA results informing our approach to assessment and standardised data and reporting in schools?

Absolutely, and I completely agree with that, but it does not answer the question about how we are measuring those factors. You have reeled off a list, but how do we, as a committee and a country, assess and measure success for each individual child? How are young people going out into the world and demonstrating their success to future employers or on vocational courses? The Hayward review recommended a national diploma of achievement, but that has not been rolled out nationally yet. I accept that it is great to have a broad range of goals, targets and achievements, but how are we measuring those things and keeping the measurement consistent across local authorities?

I will follow up on Karen Adam’s earlier question about BSL. I appreciate that we are getting a new minister who will be responsible for further and higher education, but I also want to highlight the challenges of accessing BSL education if you are deaf or hard of hearing, particularly outwith the central belt, which has excellent face-to-face learning provision via charities for adult learners of BSL.

At the moment, it is very challenging to learn BSL in later life if you are deaf or hard of hearing. It is generally marketed as continuing professional development, and you cannot access Student Awards Agency Scotland funding. I am interested to hear whether there is a prospect of that policy changing in line with the 2023 report’s recommendations.