Chamber and committees

At that point, some learning was reflected in the approach that we took. I accept the convener’s point—of course the Government needs to learn lessons on what has worked and what has not. In my initial contribution, I highlighted the PEF sampling work, which has been really important. I was hoping to share with you today some of the detail on that, but I will write to the committee with more detail in due course.

I see a note from Ms Taylor—

I believe that we have made real progress and that there are dedicated teachers out there today—we saw that in the 2022 report—who are making a real difference and improving the life chances of Scotland’s children and young people, including some of the most vulnerable.

I go back to the points that I made at the start. You cannot measure the SNP against a point back in 2016 and ignore the global context since then. The challenge is not unique to Scotland: it is being faced in other parts of the United Kingdom and globally. We must not set aside the impact of the pandemic, which did not allow us to make as much progress as we would have expected by this point.

I accept that. The convener has made political points, so I also accept that my party has been in power throughout that period and that progress has happened on my party’s watch and is to be welcomed.

I accept the member’s challenge regarding the point at which the Scottish attainment challenge was launched, but I cannot detract from the impacts that the pandemic and austerity are having on our schools. I go back to the points that I made my original contribution. To be blunt, headteachers are now using PEF money to plug gaps that the welfare state should be providing for and the use of austerity policies in relation to benefits has harmed and damaged some of our most vulnerable families. Headteachers now find themselves in the invidious position of having to help vulnerable families while also thinking about educational interventions. They have to make choices.

I confirmed that SAC and PEF will continue—although what comes next is obviously in the gift of the next Government—but we need to think about the totality of school funding and how that can be sustained in the future.

Indeed. It is the case that the data shows record improvements—

I think that it is. Some poverty has become more ingrained, particularly as a result of austerity. I am trying not to politicise the discussion, but we undoubtedly live in a state in which welfare is, to a large extent, provided by the UK Government, and there is sometimes a disconnect between its policy and ours in Scotland. That can harm some of our most vulnerable people and can mean that the poverty-related attainment gap has become more stubborn over time and harder to move.

Having a political focus on that has been good for our schools. When I was a teacher at the Royal high school in Edinburgh in 2011, I heard a presentation, which was probably given by the local authority, about the percentage of our young people who left school without any qualifications. Essentially, we told a cohort of young people who did not obtain 33.33 per cent in their prelim that they could not go on to sit the higher exam because it was not for them. We did not even allow them the opportunity to sit the exam for that qualification. Therefore, I do not underestimate the shift in mindset that has taken place in our schools to get us to a place where we are doing better at supporting young people to achieve.

However, the member is right: austerity and the grinding impact of poverty have become much more challenging to deal with. That is why we see local authorities such as Falkirk Council and Dundee City Council using the additionality of the PEF money to support people with paying their bills by employing income-maximisation officers. I do not think that anyone who was around when we launched that fund in 2016 would have countenanced that. I absolutely support headteachers’ decisions, but we need to think again about educational interventions and about the fact that schools are mopping up things that other services should be providing.

The Government does a lot of work to track the on-going destinations of young people when they leave school. There is also a participation measure—we will come on to that—which captures those in S4 to S6, so it includes those who are in school and the initial leavers’ destinations. There is also data on young people six months on from leaving school. We track that data, and Skills Development Scotland is involved in tracking it across the piece.

For me, the concerning thing is that there has been a slight widening of the gap in relation to positive destinations this year. We have seen that gap widen to 4.3 percentage points, which is an increase on the previous year’s gap of 3.7 percentage points. There has been a slight increase, but it is still the second-narrowest gap on record, which speaks to the totality of the situation—albeit over a long time trajectory; I accept Mr Rennie’s point that it dates back to 2009-10. Nonetheless, that tells us a story of improvement.

The initial destinations themselves are wide and varied. To go back to Mr Mason’s question, part of the answer is that the pathways that are now on offer to young people in school are wider and more varied than when the Scottish attainment challenge was introduced. There is now such a range of different pathways for children and young people to pursue, and the initial destination statistics capture some of that with regard to the next steps.

I will bring in officials to talk about the evaluation work that we have undertaken. Dave Gregory’s team has led a lot of good work on sharing good practice at the national level and on getting schools to work with one another on what has worked.

However, the PEF sampling work that David Leng and Alison Taylor have been involved in has also been heartening. I cannot speak for officials, but they can speak for themselves about the transformative impacts of the funding in our schools. We need to learn from the PEF sampling work, particularly when we look to evaluate the totality of the spend across the 10-year period. Dave Gregory and David Leng might want to say more on those points.

I have not had it yet.

Which suggestions?

That goes back to my response to Mr Rennie: when you look at the totality across time, there has been an improvement in relation to on-going positive destinations. With regard to the broader view, I do not know which years you are comparing. Can you clarify that?