Chamber and committees

When we go on school visits, we all see a side to schools that is presented to politicians, but I also know classroom teachers well. In schools, we need to try to build the opportunities for young people to be engaged. It is a bit like voter apathy. You have to try to reach those people. Scotland’s teachers do a really good job of reaching young people every day. I will pick on modern studies because it is a subject that is unique to the Scottish curriculum. It allows not only for decision making to be talked about in class but for apathy to be challenged.

Qualifications Scotland will have to work hard with Scotland’s teachers and schools to engage young people in decision making through the new approach to the charter and the learner interest committee. I suppose that your point is that we do not want to hear a host of the same voices that we routinely hear from the same stakeholders. I know that the committee has taken evidence on that. We routinely hear from the same stakeholders in Scottish education and we need to think critically about how we go wider than that. Although the voices that are heard at this committee are important, there are other voices out there. How do we pull out those who are perhaps, as Mr Mason has pointed out, apathetic?

They are referenced in the policy memorandum, but they will also be part of the learner interest committee and the charter. We will also look at developing guidance on how we can support further clarification on that point.

I heard the challenge in relation to the point regarding parents and carers. I should also say that, more broadly, as committee members might be aware—I think that Ms Duncan-Glancy asked me a topical question on this not that long ago—we have changed the way in which we fund parental organisations in Scotland. We are now providing additional funding to Connect to develop a national assembly. That approach to having a parent voice at the national level will be very important to challenging the Government on a range of issues, not least qualifications.

In the policy memorandum.

We can consider that. Again, we must be mindful that too much stipulation in primary legislation can be challenging. It can limit and dilute the pool of people who are available to fulfil some of these opportunities. I am happy to hear views from committee members to that end. If the committee is minded to ensure that that is specified, we can look at that, although there might be some unintended consequences of doing so.

Mr Mason’s point is about whether that representative might be there to speak on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, for example. I will work with committee members on that if the committee has a strong feeling about it. At the moment, it is fair to say that we are taking an open approach.

We see that as being largely for an administrative purpose, because it is important that the body is in the room at the same time that the groups meet. It is also important that, if the groups raise a challenge with qualifications Scotland, the body is there to respond to that challenge. Therefore, a qualifications Scotland staff member will be present for two reasons. It will have a representative in the room because it is its organisation, too, so it is important that it hears the challenge. It is there to respond. One of the key challenges that the SQA faces is that, arguably, it has not been responsive in the past, so let us try to manage that through the governance structures. The qualifications Scotland representative will not be there to be a voice for learners or teachers—that is not the approach that we would take to their presence in the room. It will have a representative present to respond to any challenge; largely, that will have an administrative purpose, because it is its body, too.

That is quite a contentious issue, in itself. As you have set out, Mr Rennie, the system is voluntary, except when it comes to Scottish vocational qualifications, which need to be accredited.

There will be a range of views on whether accreditation should be mandated. I am not going to give Mr Rennie a direct answer on that today; I will consider it. After all, taking such a decision would not be without consequences. I suspect that the main consequence would be to do with resource—which I do not have.

As a result, we need to be pragmatic about the realities of where we are. Would I, in an ideal world, look to mandate accreditation of all qualifications? I am not sure that I would, because it might have unintended consequences for a range of qualifications.

Fiona Robertson knows qualifications better than I do. She delivers a suite of different qualifications in a range of educational settings. It has probably grown quite naturally that accreditation is not mandated for every qualification that is offered. However, that is something that we will continue to consider. Moreover, I do not want to divorce the challenge from Mr Dey’s wider work on reform of post-school education, which is why the work of the short-life working group is really important.

I think that such an approach would affect qualifications in different ways, given that so many of the qualifications that are delivered by the SQA are not delivered in schools. Our focus today might mean that we are looking at this through a school-unit lens, so perhaps we should ask secondary headteachers to look at the issue in the future. I am not against doing so. My question, though, is always going to be this: how would that improve things for learners? How would it improve outcomes for our children and young people?

I am sorry, but that was not a point that I picked up on in the previous evidence session. Does that relate to the protection of vulnerable groups scheme and fitness for teaching?

I do.

Absolutely. That will clarify the role and deliver greater accountability.