Chamber and committees

That will be a matter for your constituents in 2026, convener.

The ACEL data are official statistics and are rigorously tested and assessed by our analysts. That is important.

That is when the ACEL data was introduced.

Which other measure—

The stretch aims that Ms Taylor talked about have been fundamental. When the Government looked at the nine challenge model and accepted that we would take the strategic equity fund approach for all local authorities, we attached that funding to a requirement for local authorities to report on their stretch aims. Mr Rennie and I have previously discussed the stretch aims, and perhaps his views in relation to ambition, but if the stretch aims were adhered to, we would close the poverty-related attainment gap by 30 per cent, I think, by the end of this session of the Parliament.

It is important to say that when we are talking about closing the poverty-related attainment gap, we are talking about actions at local level. That requires central Government, yes, but it also requires local governments—which are not here today—to adhere to the requirements that are set out in their stretch aims, which they have committed to working towards. I go back to Mr Rennie’s points about the data, which I hear he is not necessarily convinced about. I will bring in Mr Gregory in relation to his team’s work on the issue and the improvement that they have seen throughout the attainment challenge.

To build on that point, the role of the school has changed since I was last working in a school and even in the past 10 years. Schools are now doing so many other things—members will be familiar with that from their visits in their constituencies. Schools provide services that they did not provide 10 or 15 years ago.

Part of that is due to the Scottish attainment challenge—schools are thinking again about how they support the broader community. It is also because schools are open and accessible to families, while many other places are not. Families go to schools and find support. The primary school in Kirkcaldy that I mentioned is doing a lot of work with parents and with mums in the morning on supporting their mental health and wellbeing. That did not happen when I was at school, and it certainly did not happen 15 years ago when I was teaching.

The way that we fund our schools is different. However, schools are also mopping up a lot of societal challenges. In that context—this may be a political point—all parties going into the 2026 election need to think about how we sustainably fund our schools. SAC and PEF will meet some of the need, but we will be required to look again at, for example, how we provide support for health outcomes in schools, which we know are being supported across the country.

It is the flexibility that makes the difference. I remember that when we announced the funding, there was some challenge against having such flexibility and a suggestion that it should be more limited in terms of the choice of how it is used. Headteachers have welcomed the ability to have freedom of choice and expression in using the funding to suit their schools’ needs. David Leng and Alison Taylor might want to talk about some of the PEF sampling work that has been done in this space, because that point has been really powerfully illustrated to them. I look forward to a series of visits about it very soon.

I do not accept that, which will not surprise Ms Duncan-Glancy. Record funding is going to local government in the settlement this year—I think that it is £15 billion.

Another thing in relation to the budget is that the Government has provided additionality for ASN and teacher numbers. Staff in our schools really matter, so we have protected and enhanced those budget lines. The line for teacher numbers has gone up to £185.6 million and the line for ASN has gone up to £29 million. The purpose of the ASN funding, which is in addition to an extra £1 billion that is baked into the general revenue grant, is for local authorities to employ more specialist staff.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s line of questioning is about permanency. We want our local authorities to employ permanent staff. That is why there was extra funding in the budget—it was to allow them to do that and to give them that certainty.

Some staff are employed via PEF, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. One interesting thing about SAC and PEF in their totality is that funding certainty has been associated with those budget lines. It is unusual for a Government to say, “We will give you clear sight over a four-year spending cycle.” The purpose of that was to give local authorities and headteachers certainty that the funding would not be taken away.

Stopping the use of temporary contracts, for example, has been a helpful measure. Of course, we want to increase the availability of permanent contracts, and we will do that by resourcing local government adequately. I therefore do not agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s assertion on that point.

It might be an issue for the local authority. I am happy to pick up the specifics of that with Ms Duncan-Glancy if she shares details with me and officials after the meeting. However, Alison Taylor might want to come in on that point, as I can see her nodding.

That will be a matter for the next Government.