Chamber and committees

Convener, that is something that we can consider as a committee. Thank you for that, Jim.

The more that I think about evaluation in the short term, the clearer it is that you must embed evaluation in the planning process from day 1. Much of the chat this morning has been about what that planning process should look like and how teachers, carers, parents and the wider community should be involved. I note that the refresh of the attainment challenge was announced in November 2021, with associated documents being published in March this year. That guidance is pretty explicit about the things that should happen in the planning process. It goes as far as to talk about carrying out a participatory budgeting process, meaning that everyone, including the wider community, would have their say.

I am unsure whether that already happened in some areas or whether that will now happen more consistently across the country. If we are planning for next term, that planning should already have started. As I said, the revised guidance came out in March. When do our witnesses think that schools will be able to take account of and put into practice the refreshed guidance? Maybe Greg Dempster could start off the reply to that.

That is helpful. From the perspective of an employee or a classroom teacher—of course, you are an educationist, Mr Dempster—what do the unions think about that planning process and the new guidance? Andrea Bradley, have there been any discussions so far at a local authority level with the EIS, for example, about how, through the refreshed guidance, teachers could be engaged more in the planning process?

That is very helpful. Of course, the nine authorities that were already attainment challenge local authorities will have developed expertise, which I hope can be shared across local authorities. I absolutely take on board the point that was made about the guidance having just come out and that we are at the exam diets, particularly for secondary schools. Mike Corbett, when do you anticipate those conversations happening at the school level? Will there be a couple of in-service days before the summer break or early in August?

Secondly, if sizeable decisions are being made at the moment—there might not be—in how the funds should be spent, would it be better to have interim provision for the next few months, say to Christmas, so that there is time to engage with teachers and to allow for a more fundamental, effective and systematic roll-out of PEF funding that engages fully with teachers, parents and carers? Would it make sense to have those conversations as soon as possible and maybe hold off some of the decisions on how the money is spent to get it right, rather than rush to spend the money for August?

With the indulgence of the convener, I have been given permission for a brief final question. I thought it very helpful that the revised guidance says that a report should be given to parent councils at the end of each year so that it is clear what PEF has or has not achieved in that academic year. That report would also be part of the process of refreshing and changing the approach each year. I will bring in Greg Dempster for this final question. Has some of that been happening already? Is there an annual trawl of parent councils about that direct engagement? Is the approach just affirming good practice, or is it patchwork across the country? I also see that Mr Thewliss would like to come in on that—I am sure he will do so very briefly, of course—with the indulgence of the convener.

Sue Webber has raised an interesting point. In relation to illness and family requirements, one would absolutely expect confidentiality and privacy for members. However, some of the other reasons, such as required parliamentary business, could be open to interpretation. An example might be a ministerial visit in a member’s constituency. Some MSPs might deem that to be required parliamentary business, but others might not, and it might be a grey area for others. It might be useful to know how often that reason has been used.

I am in no way suggesting that we should police the situation, but that would allow us to get a feel for whether the flexibility has been used for fairly obvious and evident public health reasons due to the pandemic or for other purposes. Members are entitled to use the flexibility, but that would allow us to get a sense of the spread of reasons why it has been used—with complete anonymity for the MSPs involved, of course.

I think that committee members were looking at one another to see who was going to comment first. I do not know whether I drew the short straw.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer and the Conveners Group for writing to us to raise the issue, which is important. As someone who was previously a member of the Conveners Group, I know that the conveners of the Parliament’s committees offer a very well-considered and well-rounded view, so we must take seriously their desire for continuity of committee membership, including substitutes.

That said, I can see that the Conveners Group is trying to be helpful. It acknowledges that, during the pandemic—which, sadly, is not quite over yet—significant flexibility was required. In fact, complete flexibility was absolutely necessary. For the time being, that flexibility continues, but at some point it will have to draw to a close or be formalised in a way that is more in keeping with the continuity that conveners seek, by having two named substitutes. Therefore, I think that we should give serious consideration to that suggestion.

I would be very interested to find out what the Parliamentary Bureau’s thoughts are in relation to the Conveners Group’s suggestion, which I am very open to, and I would like to find out why the bureau thinks that it might be beneficial to have such open-ended flexibility embedded in parliamentary practices. I am not so sure that that is required, but it is, of course, the job of members of this committee to look at the evidence and to come to a well-considered and well-rounded view. I think that we need a wee bit more information before we can do that.

Good morning to both witnesses. Your evidence so far has been really helpful.

An area in which there is probably broad consensus is the recommendations around the reform of inspections. I know that colleagues will have some general questions on that, but I will look specifically at reform of the inspections process in early learning and childcare. It is widely agreed that that sector is disproportionately assessed and that the inspection work could be far more efficient. Professor Muir recommended that there should be a shared inspections framework between the new inspectorate body and the Care Inspectorate. Given the fact that there are more than 200,000 young people in more than 8,000 registered early learning and childcare services in Scotland, it is obvious how the bureaucracy of assessment and inspection could be burdensome.

I have a very specific question on that. Education Scotland says on its website that it already has examples of stand-alone childcare facilities that have a Care Inspectorate representative on their inspection team from time to time. I am keen to know what a shared inspection framework would look like and whether the practice would be to inspect once and comprehensively rather than return again and again to early years settings.

That is helpful. I have a relatively brief—I hope—follow-up question. What came through strongly in the report was your surprise that the Care Inspectorate produced its own revised framework when it was working collaboratively with Education Scotland. I will leave the question of why that would be the case sitting there.

You seem to be quite clear about the need for a shared, supportive inspection framework that would be combined and integrated. It would involve a seamless, inspect-once process, so the skills mix would have to be appropriate. You said that you would probably favour a new inspectorate body on the education side of things leading on that. You also acknowledged the need for legislative change because there are statutory duties in relation to inspections of early learning and childcare settings. That is helpful. My understanding is that the Government will bring forward its proposals in that respect before the summer.

Would it be possible to leave that open? As long as a lead agency—be it the new education inspectorate or the Care Inspectorate—does a combined inspection, with a multidisciplinary team with the appropriate skills mix going into an establishment, could there be a joint statutory duty in that regard? I think that practitioners will not care whether it is the new education inspectorate or the Care Inspectorate, but they will want it to be proportionate, supportive and not bureaucratic. Do you have any additional thoughts on that or on the Scottish Government’s timescale, details of which are likely to emerge before the summer?

Would a summer timescale be reasonable?

I have a brief comment to make. I nearly asked Mr O’Kane about this, but I did not think that it would be required. However, I would like to put on record the fact that I think that the cross-party group could be of good service to the committees of the Parliament as well. I sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and we will clearly have a scrutiny role in relation to the delivery of the Promise, but we will not always be able to give that as much time as we would like to. I think that the work of the cross-party group could certainly complement the work of the main committees of the Parliament in relation to their responsibility for ensuring that we deliver on the Promise. In that context, it is very welcome that this cross-party group is, hopefully, going to be established.