Chamber and committees

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.

Mr Brown is a former cabinet secretary in this Government, and he knows that the Government is a fan of targets. There are good reasons for having targets; it is important that we show the public that we are working to improve public services.

I go back to some of the thinking around closing the poverty-related attainment gap. There was broad support for the target at the time. It was a momentous shift in how we funded our schools to have funding from central Government that was protected. There is a challenge in that, because, to respond to Mr Brown’s question, this is about accountability. I am here, and I am accountable, ultimately, to the Parliament and to the committee, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is not here, and I cannot deliver on closing the poverty-related attainment gap if local authorities are not at the table.

That is why our change—from the nine challenge authorities to the strategic model—really tied local authorities in with regard to their stretch aims. We had to tie our funding to a requirement that local authorities were going to sign up to the stretch aims. It is fair to say that that was not without challenge across the piece. Officials had to work with local authorities to get them to agree to deliver in order to provide the accountability on the ground that Mr Brown’s point was about, which is what really makes the difference.

As education secretary, I am often reminded that I do not have much power, but we have a partnership approach to the delivery of education in Scotland, which empowers local authorities to run education departments. However, we also need them to deliver on the Government’s objectives, and that must be done in partnership. The stretch aims have been really helpful in unlocking some of the progress that has been made. I want to put on the record my thanks to Dave Gregory and his team. They have been working at the national level with 30 attainment advisers and working individually with local authorities to provide support, which has also been key.

There will always be debates about accountability in education, because there will always be a degree of friction between the aspirations of central Government, which is ultimately accountable, and the reality of delivery on the ground, which can sometimes detract from the policy ambition.

As I understand it, it is exactly the same. The purpose of that confirmation is to give reassurance. I do not know whether you have experienced this, but on my visits to schools, I have met headteachers who were anxious about that funding coming to an end. Therefore, I wanted to give them certainty.

As I said to Ms Duncan-Glancy, what that looks like will, quite rightly, be a decision for the next Government. However, in order to give headteachers that bridging support, it was important that we confirmed that extension beyond next financial year.

Yes. We have been working to support them. The decisions around those changes pre-date my time in office, so I might lean into officials, in a moment.

However, if we go back to the committee’s recommendations in 2022, there was an acceptance at that time that poverty exists in all local authorities, and an acceptance that the move to that model—which was welcomed by many—seemed to be fairer.

We have worked with those local authorities, particularly in relation to the tapering of the funding. I will bring in officials to talk about what that support has looked like and how we have given that additionality.

I know that Mr Dey answered questions on that when he was in front of the committee last week. There is a pilot being undertaken in the north-east of Scotland, and we are working with Universities Scotland on what we can do at the national level. In my experience, it often relates to local agreements; some of the work that was undertaken in the north-east in particular related to a local agreement with the local authority.

The point that David Leng was making pertains to data sharing with the DWP. We have been pursuing that for a number of years, and we are hopeful that we can have that data arrangement in place so that we can better target the funding—that is exactly the point that David was making. I am mindful in particular of the expansion of free school meals and how that will interact with our data at the national level. We need to look at different measurements. We are already doing that through the measurement on children—

No, I have not received it yet.

Are you asking about the move from the nine authorities to the wider—

On the first point that you have put to me, I accept that the slight widening of levels 4, 5 and 6 in the most recent data set is a challenge. However, it is important to look at the totality of progress that has been made across the piece, which is the point that I made to Mr Rennie.

Some of the challenge is that the NIF measurement is not in the same place as the stretch aims, so it is not gathering the totality of qualifications. The point that was made to Mr Briggs on the radio last week was that, if we only look at the narrow data set, we will miss all the other qualifications that our young people are achieving. It is, therefore, more important that we move to a truer story about the totality of qualifications in the round. However, I accept that the figures for this year are not where they should be, and we need to reset and focus on progress. Today, you have heard about some of the actions that are being taken to that end.