Chamber and committees

Its advice, considering the four harms approach, was that given the fact that one of our main concerns was to reduce the disruption to children’s education through prolonged periods of being off school—

We will have a new agency; the SQA will be replaced. When that happens, we will not have the SQA; we will have a different body. It is important that what that will look like is being left to Ken Muir’s independent review. At this point, the exact make-up of the agency is for Mr Muir to consider and give recommendations on. The functions that he is looking at are in many ways already being carried out by different parts of Government—for example, he is considering what functions should go to the replacement of the SQA and where inspections should sit. We are not necessarily inventing new functions as part of that process.

It is an area of education on which I am keen to attempt to build consensus as far as possible. The refreshed and reformed Scottish education council is quite a large body, but it brings together representatives from local government, some of the trade unions and, importantly, more children and young people and more representatives of children and young people’s rights to have that type of discussion.

I said that I am happy to provide further detail about digital training, but I can go into that more. I gave examples of lower-pay jobs, although I stress that they are not lower-skill jobs. Digital training is key, which is why we had the Logan review to look at that particular issue. I have spoken to Mark Logan about the issue and about education. When we discussed that, we agreed that my officials would work with him to see what more can be done in the education sector.

I take your point. I have no issue with your assessment of the challenge of ensuring that we have the right skills in the teaching profession to be able to provide the courses that will allow people to go on to university. That is just one of the aspects in the Logan review. He and I have discussed what we need to do about that. I absolutely agree that more needs to done on that, and we are keen to work with him to see what more can be done collaboratively and what we need to change.

Part of the challenge is attracting to the teaching profession people who might have other employment opportunities if they have the type of computing background that we are looking for. They might not see teaching as the attractive option. That is one area among many that we are looking at.

I have not spoken to the commissioner, but I have absolutely heard what he had to say about that. Most of my discussions have been with Liam Fowley, who is on the Covid-19 education recovery group, and who has made clear the discussions and concerns about the NQ21—now the NQ22—group. I have listened carefully to what the commissioner has said about being careful—he probably put it more strongly than that—about the wording that that the Government uses. We need to be careful that, when we talk about co-design, that genuinely means co-design. I am keen for the Government to do a lot more in that area, which is why I am setting up the children and young people’s education council. It will have parity with the education council, which has been refreshed, and it will meet soon, so that children and young people have a voice.

Given my experience in my previous brief, in social security, I am acutely conscious that having people at the table does not mean that they feel empowered to have their voice heard or that having their voice heard is facilitated at that point. Regardless of where we are in Government, that is a lesson that we absolutely need to learn and take cognisance of.

I think that I have listened to the criticisms, although I am happy to be told otherwise by the commissioner if we need to do more on that. Listening does not mean that we will always agree with a children and young people’s representative on a panel. For example, I had a fundamental disagreement with some points that were put forward about a no-detriment policy in relation to the appeals process for 2021. However, the key point is whether every young person in the process felt that they had the right opportunity to have their say and be listened to, whether or not I agreed with them. They clearly did not feel that way, and I have taken that exceptionally seriously. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have taken action on that since then.

You have raised a very important issue. That was a challenge pre-pandemic, and it has certainly been a challenge because of the pandemic. That challenge has been accentuated because of the impact of Brexit on many areas. We are seeing vacancies and gaps in particular areas.

I understand that Michael Marra has received from the SQA a list of the areas of policy that still need an EQIA. I urge caution. He has a list of the policy headings; however, I hope to reassure the committee. I have spoken directly to the chief examiner on the issue, and discussions have been on-going between the SQA and my officials. I repeat that I have had an assurance that nothing that is outstanding has implications for the awards that have been given over the past two years. This is about historical practices and policies. I have sought, and been given, the reassurance that the types of policy for which EQIAs remain outstanding have not had any implications for awards.

There are a number of areas for which there must be a signed legal agreement between an organisation and the commission; there is confidentiality about what can be publicised. Again, my understanding is that the SQA sought and got agreement from the commission that the list could be published in an attempt at reassurance that it is being as transparent as possible while abiding by the legal agreement.

I appreciate where Mr Marra is coming from, and I would wish that the SQA could say more. It has to seek agreement from the commission in order to be able to make areas public. It is not a comfortable position for the SQA either, because I think that it might wish to be able to reassure people more than is possible. It has tried to do so through getting the list and making it available to Mr Marra.

I understand that the Deputy First Minister will make a statement to Parliament, so I refer the committee to that statement and the chance to ask questions about the matter then, as I have not had the opportunity to analyse what has been made public while I have been at committee.

The evidence on face coverings is considered by our sub-group that looks at all the mitigation measures that are part of our Covid strategy. That evidence is regularly reviewed; the sub-group met yesterday and I await its updated suggestions, which we will discuss at the Covid-19 education recovery group. The sub-group considers the four harms approach, as we do in relation to all aspects of the direct impact of Covid, indirect health issues and issues around health and wellbeing. It is the sub-group’s role to provide advice on that basis and I am sure that I will receive advice from it that we will discuss tomorrow at CERG.

It is important that we have the correct data. That enables teachers to make informed judgements about how well pupils are progressing and headteachers to assess what is happening in their schools. That data is also useful to local authorities. It is important that the Government has the information to enable it to see whether there is any concern about the variation in outcomes for children. It is important that we gather data so that we can ensure that every child, regardless of where they are in Scotland, has the right opportunities and that there is not variation in outcomes.

To be clear, we collect evidence about curriculum for excellence levels. We do not publish the results of the standardised assessments. Those are two very different things. What matters is the data that is being collected, what it is used for and how useful it is to different parts of the system. There is nothing in the OECD report to say that we should not collect data nationally. The challenge that the OECD has given us is to consider whether we are collecting the right data and doing the right things with it. There is a distinction between the standardised assessments and the data that we collect at a national level and how we use that.