Chamber and committees

The convener raises important points on closing the attainment gap and attendance, an issue that has concerned me since my appointment at the end of March. We have seen a narrowing of the gap since 2019; the most recent exam results from this academic year show that. It is important that we compare this academic year with 2019 as the closest possible barometer of comparison, given that, during the pandemic, the Scottish Qualifications Authority removed the normal course requirements for qualifications and replaced them with a different measure, using teacher judgment, which I know the committee will be familiar with. Our closest barometer of measurement is 2019, and the comparison shows that we are making progress in closing the gap in relation to exam results.

The achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data on literacy and numeracy in primary 7 showed last December the biggest amount of progress that we have seen since records began. The most up-to-date data on ACEL for primary 7 will be published in December, and the committee will want to look closely at that—as I certainly will.

On issues surrounding attendance more broadly, I receive fortnightly updates on the national picture of attendance, and they concern me. Members will have heard me say in the chamber that certain year groups seem to have challenges in relation to their school attendance. It appears to me that those are the year groups that went through a transitional period in their education during the pandemic. Whether that was, for example, pupils in primary 7 or those in secondary 3, there are gaps in attendance in certain year groups.

To that end, I have asked Education Scotland to look at the issue in more depth and provide me with further advice, which will be forthcoming later in the month. I would be happy to share that advice and any recommendations with the committee, recognising that managing attendance is a matter for local authorities. I know that some local authorities use their PEF to improve attendance and attainment, for which it can be a valuable tool, but, aside from that, local authorities have a responsibility in relation to attendance.

I was very worried after some of my school visits, because I heard about care-experienced young people not attending school because of their experiences during the pandemic. It concerns me that those young people are not attending and that, as a result, their educational needs might not be being met.

We need to be mindful—as, I know, the committee is—of the impacts of the pandemic on schools. Those impacts did not just disappear after the last lockdown. They changed behaviour, the way in which our young people interact with the education system and the way in which parents engage with teachers. We need to be mindful of that and sensitive to it, particularly in relation to attendance.

As the cabinet secretary, I am fearful that a cohort of young people have had their education disrupted by Covid and by industrial action. We need to engage those young people fully in their education to improve their outcomes, which is why improving attendance is key.

Absolutely, convener. I am being reminded that Liz Sommerville from Education Scotland is here. I will bring in Liz, who is working on the deep dive that Education Scotland is preparing. The work on engaging the college sector in our schools, to which you allude, is fundamental to providing different pathways for young people and getting them to re-engage with the education system if there has been disengagement due to the pandemic and an impact on attendance.

I do not agree with what Ms Duncan-Glancy has just intimated. The gap for national 5s and highers is narrower than it was in 2019. That is our closest barometer of measurement. If the suggestion is that we compare this year’s results with those in 2022, I do not accept that, because the course qualification requirements for 2022 do not match up to the course qualification requirements today.

We will need to address that. The retention of staff in the PVI sector is important. As you alluded to, Mr Rennie, the First Minister spoke about that a lot during the recent leadership contest that took place in my party, but it is also central to his vision and his approach to Government that we expand childcare, because he recognises that that is about not only providing childcare but growing a wellbeing economy and, often, about freeing up mums to go back to work. We need to recognise the wider impacts.

The member made a point in relation to the budget, and we will need to look at how we can retain staff in the PVI sector, because—as I said in my opening response to Mr Rennie—those staff are crucial to delivering the expansion of ELC; we cannot do it without them.

I do not know whether Eleanor Passmore has anything to add specifically in relation to experienced staff.

What I understand from the negotiations as they are currently progressing—again, I put on the record that I am not involved in the negotiations; my interest in the matter is very much in maintaining the continuity of education provision—is that £30 million of resource is going to be reprofiled from 2024-25 with the local government attainment grant, which was formerly PEF. That will simply align the funding with the academic year as opposed to the financial year in planned spending by schools.

The important point in all this is that there will be no detriment to funding at a school level. I have been clear on that, in terms of my responsibilities. The reprofiling will not impact on the availability of funding at the local level. It has, as I understand it—again, I point out that I am not engaged in the negotiations—been part of the decision making around the current offer that is on the table.

The member makes an important point. There are undoubtedly challenges in subject specialism in secondary. As he knows, because he has asked me many written parliamentary questions on the topic, there are geographical challenges in getting subject specialists to go to certain parts of the country. As the committee is probably aware, we have a waiver scheme whereby, if you tick the box, as I did many moons ago, you are given a golden handshake by the Government to go and teach in any part of Scotland. I am keen to work with the strategic board for teacher education on how we can better encourage people to take up that scheme.

However, I recognise that the Government is investing in our teachers and their education. There are no tuition fees in Scotland for four years, and studying for a postgraduate qualification will not have any tuition fees attached to it. The probationary year is funded directly by central Government. That amounts to quite a lot of investment by the Government. Would it not be preferable for us to look again at how we can guarantee a level of employment for new teachers who are coming through the system? As part of that, we could look at geographical variation. It would also be a way of addressing Mr Kerr’s point about subject specialism, which is, as he said, a challenge in certain areas.

It is probably the latter—I think that it will evolve. We need to rework the relationship with local authorities. We need to get to a place where we can trust each other. I accept that that is a two-way street and that, in the past, that relationship has not necessarily been in the best of spaces.

Despite what I said in my commentary around teacher numbers, we have had very good working relationships with local authorities over the past four weeks. The committee will be aware of the challenges that we have faced in relation to the presence of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—in the school estate. COSLA has worked very closely with our local authority partners on that issue at pace and with urgency, and I thank it for its endeavours on that. Although the work on that issue was not part of the Verity house agreement, it is representative of a new approach to local government working with the Scottish Government. I currently meet COSLA weekly. As well as RAAC, we discuss matters such as the industrial action that is taking place this week. That has been a positive process.

To answer Mr Greer’s question, there is no end date for the process as far as I am concerned, although I am mindful of the fact that budgetary responsibility sits with another cabinet secretary, who might have a different view on that, given her interests. However, we are currently looking at how we can explore with COSLA that approach to governance and assurance in terms of accountability. That is our focus. There is no end date for the process per se, but we all recognise that, in the longer term, we want to get to a better funding situation that does not involve us recouping money or directing blocks of funding to local government but, instead, means that we are able to trust authorities to spend money in whichever way they see fit and in a way that meets the needs of their young people.

Mr Greer highlights a really important point, which is to do with local variance in how things are recorded. I know that the committee will have taken an interest in the work that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education has carried out on how we measure incidents related to bullying and the disparate approaches that are used around the country in relation to how that data is gathered.

It is important to remember that, as the committee will know, more than a third of our pupils in mainstream education have an identified additional support need. Given that most of our young people will be in the mainstream, the question that arises is how local authorities are gathering that data. I would be keen to work with the committee on that, if that would be helpful, because I think that we need to develop a national approach to how that is measured and tracked.

I have been taking such matters forward with SAGRABIS in relation to behaviour. I think that I have written to the committee about that, but I will explain that SAGRABIS is the group that brings together the Scottish Government, COSLA and wider partners on the issues surrounding behaviour. At that meeting, COSLA’s clear ask was that we look to have a more standardised approach to measuring bullying incidents in schools. A more standardised approach to measuring ASN spend and how that information is gathered at local authority level would also be very helpful.

I go back to Michelle Thomson’s point about the Verity house agreement and local accountability. Having that data at our fingertips would be helpful in measuring ASN spend and the outcomes that that additional spend is delivering for young people with additional support needs.

It is really challenging. Every young person with additional support needs is unique, so the measurement of inputting X and expecting Y as an outcome cannot really be used. We need to be mindful of that. These are people. We all have different needs as adults, and our young people are exactly the same.

I go back to your question about the measurement and the tension with local authorities on that issue. To me, this is an opportunity for us to better evidence how the funding that we provide at a national level can drive improvements at the local authority level. We have heard from Education Scotland about some of the partnership work that it is engaged in in relation to attendance and different things that work, and I have certainly seen fantastic examples of how provision for additional support needs is working in mainstream settings, but also in special school settings.

I do not have a direct answer to the member’s point—I will be frank about that. However, I want to explore the issue more fully with COSLA in the context of the Verity house agreement, recognising the need for transparency about spend, but also the member’s point about outcomes for these young people. They will not necessarily be binary things that we can measure, because they will depend on the individual young person. That can be difficult to grasp in the heat of political debates. We should all recognise that, given that more than a third of our young people in schools have an additional support need, they are part of the mainstream. We have a different approach to education in Scotland now, but I think that we sometimes miss that in the mix.

I might bring in Alison Taylor on that. As she said, there is limited evidence from down south and other parts of the world. However, the principle of universality is an important one. In my response to Mr Macpherson, I talked about how, certainly when I was teaching, stigmatisation could be attached to those who were in receipt of free school meals. Universality removes that, but I do not know whether we have further international evidence on that.