Chamber and committees

Indeed, and that is exactly why the discussions that we have will vary from institution to institution. Although you understandably point to the difference from the rest of the UK, there is also great variation within Scotland.

You have mentioned the work on international students that is already happening with the university sector—those discussions are happening at all levels of Government to ensure that everybody is aware of and is sharing information about risks and that institutions are cognisant of them. Because they are independent of Government, the Government cannot insist on changes—nor should we—but I think that everybody in Government and in the institutions is very live to the points that you have made.

Colleges have an exceptionally important role in our vision for our economy. One of the Government’s priorities is the move to net zero, and colleges will play an exceptionally important part in that. The on-going work on purpose and principles sets out where we want to develop a shared understanding and vision for Scotland’s tertiary education sector, including colleges.

In summary, my expectation of the college sector is one that can deliver for the needs of our economy and society. Those needs will change over time as our economy and society change, and our college sector will have to change and respond to those needs and demands. The sector has shown that it is exceptionally flexible, that it works well with local employers and that it looks forward to identify what future skills are needed to ensure that it can deliver on that.

For brevity, I will leave it there.

Given that it is a multiyear fund, we have a multiyear evaluation strategy. You are right to point out that the fund will have some short-term effects but that some effects will take time to come to fruition. We are looking at more frequent publications as part of the refreshed SAC and at what in-year evaluation we can do instead of retrospectively evaluating what has already happened. That would assist with how the money is being spent instead of our waiting until the money has been spent and then evaluating. That is quite difficult, because certain aspects are quite intensive, particularly for some of the projects, and it can take time to see the effects, as you will appreciate from your experience in schools.

The other important aspect is the headteacher survey, which asks whether headteachers feel that a difference is being made. We have seen very positive feedback from those who have replied to that survey in the past. The survey gives us as good a guide as possible—from those who take part in it—on whether headteachers feel that the money is making a difference on attainment or wider health and wellbeing issues. That is another important part of the process of checking in regularly, although we are fully aware that turning things around will take some time, given that, as Audit Scotland and the International Council of Education Advisers recognise, the issue is exceptionally complex.

Forgive me, but I am not sure whether Mr Marra thinks that we should give them more money or less.

I will just point out that, actually, we have made progress. Although I appreciate that there was a small drop—of 92, I think—last year, teacher numbers are at near-record levels, particularly in primary teaching. However, I appreciate that we have a long way to go.

To fulfil the target is a challenge. However, we have many challenging targets in Government, and we are certainly determined to deliver on that one, with the assistance of COSLA and local authorities as the recruiters and employers.

We look at the NIF—I know that we have had discussions on this in the past because you have challenged me, quite rightly, on the fact that my focus is within primary schools rather than on different measurements, but there is a framework in the NIF around measurements of the poverty-related attainment gap. We need to see a full change happening across those measurements. There have been a number of measurements whereby we have seen an improvement; there have been a small number whereby we have not seen any improvement; and there have been a number whereby things have kind of stayed the same.

—and where that should come from.

It is, indeed, your opinion, which you are entitled to—

Are you asking how long the Hayward review will take?

Without attempting to pass on that and not give you an answer, I point out that Professor Hayward is independent of Government, so what we will get from Professor Hayward’s review is up to Professor Hayward. She is clearly going through significant consultations. We moved the timeline for the review slightly so that her final report will come out in May, but that was to ensure that we completed the national discussion and allowed her to have the information in relation to that. That was the reason why the publication date has been put back—I think, from memory—by three months.

Clearly, the speed of implementation very much depends on what Professor Hayward comes up with. If she recommends minor changes, they can be made reasonably quickly; if she recommends really substantive changes to the system, those will, quite rightly, take longer. For example, her recommendations might have implications for teacher workload or for the number of teachers who are required to carry out things in the senior phase. I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse in my answer but, until I know what she is going to recommend, I am unable to say how long it will take for that to come into force.

I am keen to see progress, because the experience over Covid and some of the initial work that is coming out of the Hayward review demonstrate that there are different ways in which we can measure success and attainment within schools, compared with what we currently have. Genuinely, until I see what she comes back with, I am unable to say how long implementation might take, because it could be a substantial and significant piece of work. Clearly, we would have to work—not just, but particularly—with teachers on the implementation. Those things can go wrong when the implications for different parts of the system are not taken into account, and the most obvious implication is around teacher workload.