Chamber and committees

I do not have anything further to add to Nico McKenzie-Juetten’s comments on that aspect.

I heard what Miles Briggs asked about stage 3—Pam Duncan-Glancy made that point earlier. I go back to Clare Hicks’s point that we would not seek to begin the recruitment round until we had certainty on any such amendments, because we would not be able to make appointments to a board without listening to the Parliament in relation to the amendments that the Government will accept. We have to reflect that in the recruitment process, but my concern as cabinet secretary is that if we sit still—this is predicated on the advice that my officials have given me—we risk not having board appointments in place for the new operational qualifications Scotland. I do not think that that will be credible to Scotland’s teachers or to pupils and their parents. It is therefore imperative that we have the board appointments in place.

I do not accept the assertion that Mr Briggs made in his final point. Of course, purely on the basis of the numbers, in a Parliament of minorities, the Government must listen to the views of Opposition parties. However, I want to have cross-party support for the bill, because that will strengthen the way in which our qualifications offer works. I have met Mr Briggs privately and I have met other members of the committee to talk about their interests in relation to amendments. I am very keen to deliver on that.

Again, I go back to the inherent risk of our not agreeing the order today, which would in essence mean a delay to the board appointment process. That concerns me, because the legislation is key to delivering all that the Parliament has asked the Government to deliver on on education reform. We can sit still if that is the committee’s view as to what we should do, but it will delay the process and there is inherent risk in that approach. It is, of course, a matter for the committee to decide on.

I am not, but I will defer to Clare Hicks and Nico.

Yes.

I very much agree with Mr Brown’s sentiments, particularly in relation to the ethical processes that are required to be adhered to. That relates back to Mr Greer’s point about the running of a truncated approach to recruitment, which might not lead to some of the positions being regulated. I imagine that that would lead to the Government being pilloried and challenged, as Mr Brown suggested, because we had not followed due process. I agree with the sentiments behind Mr Brown’s question.

I will talk about some of the progress in due course, convener, but the context is important. One of the findings from the committee’s report back in 2022 was that the pandemic had led to on-going impacts on our schools. That is not limited to Scotland; we see it across the United Kingdom. The United Nations has also produced a body of work on young people’s attainment post-pandemic. Two years out of formal schooling has impacted on attainment—we see that in relation to exam results, for example. The context matters and we need to be mindful of it.

The cost of living crisis also matters. It has compounded poverty for many families who are on the fringes of our society. If we look back to 2015-16, when PEF was first announced, the interventions that were made at that time were more targeted towards the educational space, but I now see that fund being routinely used for welfare interventions, for example in the employment of income maximisation officers, and I am sure that you see that on your visits, convener. I referred to that in my opening comment quite deliberately. In a school in Dundee, I saw PEF money being used to help families to access cheaper gas and electricity. PEF is being used in a wider sense than was originally intended, and the context of poverty needs to be understood.

I am pleased that we have made progress across a number of different measures.

I think that we made progress in the 2016 to 2021 Parliament.

I accept that we would have liked to have seen further progress, but in the context of the pandemic—

The Government looked at the programme prior to my time in office—I think that it was around the time of the committee’s report—and reflected on the way in which funding was allocated. There was a bit of learning for the Government around that and we moved to the strategic equity fund model, which essentially accepts—the challenge was put to us by local authorities and others—that poverty exists in all local authorities. The move away from the nine challenge authorities to a more equitable distribution model involved a bit of learning for the Government in relation to how we can better support local authorities, so I accept that. We also now have a team of attainment advisers in Education Scotland, led by Dr David Gregory, who is on my right. They provide targeted support to individual local authorities. I do not think that those attainment advisers were in place at the launch of the SAC funding.

In a previous response, I set out some of the progress that has been made. The positive destination statistic is a real mark of progress. A cohort of young people, certainly during my teaching career, were leaving school without any qualifications. I do not want to underestimate the change that has happened in Scotland’s secondary schools, particularly in the past 10 years, to give a chance to young people who were often leaving school at the end of S4 without qualifications. The positive destination measure is really welcome.

We might come on to this, but I was listening to some of the exchanges on the radio last Thursday morning between Mr Briggs and the headteacher of the Gaelic school in Glasgow. She made the point that we need to look at the totality of measurements in relation to the achievements of those young people. It might not be the five-highers measurement that we all experienced when we were at school. The breadth of qualifications that our young people are now achieving is quite remarkable. There is learning in that for the Government, and we might come on to that in the question-and-answer session, but it is important that we recognise the totality of achievement.

In every school that I visit, almost weekly, the different pathways that are on offer and the school-college partnerships are transformative. They did not exist 10 years ago. SAC has fundamentally changed the way in which schools meet the needs of our learners. I accept that there is still a challenge. The poverty-related attainment gap needs to close. We are doing all that we can to work with local authorities on that, but I am happy to hear challenge from the committee today on that point, because it is important that we focus on where the difference can be made. Some of that will be expanded on in relation to the PEF sampling work. You raised that with me in the chamber during the stage 1 debate, convener, and I am keen to share details of that work with you.