Chamber and committees

The member raises an important point. We also have aspirations around two-year-olds, with which the member will be familiar. It is worth pointing out—I do not know whether the committee has looked at this in detail—that uptake of the provision for two-year-olds varies, so Ms Don-Innes is working closely with local authorities and COSLA to drive uptake for eligible two-year-olds.

The member is right to say that the birth rate is falling and that that will have implications not just for ELC but for schools. We have done some forecasting work in that regard to look at teacher numbers and the future needs of the sector. I am mindful, however, that, in relation to ASN, there is a requirement—particularly post-pandemic, as we have heard—for additionality in the system, so we are thinking about ways in which we can work better with COSLA specifically on workforce matters.

In my opening comments, I made a point about the establishment of the education assurance board, which has been key to the agreement that we have reached with COSLA on teacher numbers and on funding for ASN. In my view, that work with COSLA would sit somewhere in the workforce planning stream, which is about not just the ELC workforce but the teaching workforce and ensuring that we have a workforce that is fit for the future and meets the needs of the sector.

Andrew Watson may want say more on the specifics of ELC. I think that the education assurance board gives us a better opportunity to work hand in glove with COSLA—let us not forget that councils employ most, if not all, of our ELC staff—in order to ensure that we have an education system in ELC and in teaching that meets the needs of our pupils and our younger children.

I will come in briefly on that point, if I may. Mr Adam made an important point, which is why our pathways programme in the senior phase now looks dramatically different from what it might have been when he and I were at secondary school, which is some years ago now.

We are now seeing, certainly in last year’s exam results, record numbers of pupils undertaking vocational and technical qualifications. Our schools are now diversifying their curriculum offer, and colleges are fundamental to that. On the point that Mr Adam made about plumbers and people going into trades, there is now much better partnership working between colleges and schools, which has really improved the number of pathways that are open to our young people.

In addition, there is a real opportunity through education reform to join up work further; I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail as the relevant legislation comes forward.

I am sorry, but the latest ACEL data statistics, which were published on 10 December, show that the gap between the proportion of primary pupils from the most and least deprived areas achieving expected levels in literacy has decreased to the lowest level on record. We will have to agree to disagree in that respect.

We are starting to see progress. Undoubtedly, progress has been affected by the pandemic. The schools data that the member cites shows progress on attainment compared with 2019. It is difficult to make comparisons with the exam results in some of the more recent years because of the different arrangements that were in place during the pandemic, but we are starting to see real progress.

The member also spoke about international league tables. It is worth pointing out that there has been an increase in funding in the budget because we are rejoining two of the international league tables that she mentions, which will provide greater clarity. The December 2023 programme for international student assessment—PISA—statistics, show that the post-pandemic picture in Scotland is similar to the position in other countries. Of course, the OECD described that edition of the PISA results as the Covid edition. We really need to be mindful of the impact that the pandemic has had. However, we are starting to see real progress in terms of that narrowing gap, and that is certainly to be welcomed.

I conclude by noting that the ACEL data is predicated on teacher judgment. We all trust Scotland’s teachers to make those judgments, and that is certainly to be welcomed, too.

On ASN, it is not my understanding that the £29 million funding includes the specialist provision that goes to the individual schools that we fund directly, for example. This is about us providing additionality to local authorities for specialist staff. One of the points that the committee made in its inquiry was that we have seen reductions in relation to the number of specialist staff in our schools, and I accept that. That £29 million is earmarked for that purpose, and we are working with COSLA to identify what those interventions might look like. For example, one of the points that the member has made to me in the chamber concerns the reduction in the number of ASN specialist teachers. I am sympathetic to that point, and I think that some of that £29 million should be used by local authorities to employ more ASN teachers. That is a decision for them, but the funding package gives them the opportunity to do that. They might also want to employ educational psychologists and so on, and they may want to invest in speech and language provision. That is what that £29 million is earmarked for.

There is a programme of work that is currently being led by Education Scotland on PEF sampling, which is essentially to identify the best areas of practice and to lift those up so that others can learn from them. I think that that addresses the member’s point.

There is a range of measures that headteachers across the country are taking. In my experience, PEF is often used to employ additional staff—I think that I mentioned that in response to a previous question. As a result of PEF there are now just over 3,000 additional staff in our schools.

PEF is being used for a variety of interventions. When I go into schools and speak to headteachers, I am always struck by their reliance on the fund. It is hugely important in driving change in our schools and in providing support to our young people, particularly in the post-pandemic period.

Bringing in a funding stream that empowered headteachers and allowed them to make decisions was a real change in culture. The way that we previously funded our schools did not allow for that; there was a quite centralised approach in which local authorities provided funding to schools. Now, headteachers are in the driving seat for making decisions that bring into play interventions to make a real difference.

Earlier this week, I had a discussion with officials on the PEF sampling work that I spoke about. I would be more than happy to share details of that work and where interventions are having the greatest impact, if the committee would like me to do so.

George Adam is absolutely right: if you go into your constituencies and speak to headteachers, you will see the difference that the additional funding is making on the ground. Many headteachers evangelise about the difference that it makes and about the importance of having such additionality in their school community.

The member raises a really important point. It is a broad measure but there are different levels of need in that subset. It is quite a broad measure for good reason: in the past, a number of young people would have completed their school education without ever having the additional support to which they were entitled. It is a good thing that more young people are having their needs met or an identified support need acknowledged and supported in school.

However, the member is right to say that that broad measure perhaps does not tell us the true story. Within that subset, there will be a variance in need. It is important to recognise that the measure covers a variety of different things. For example, gifted children are covered under the ASN measure. We need to be mindful of that when talking about high-tariff young people who might need complex additional support in their school education.

—we are going to make progress on eradicating child poverty through the interventions in this portfolio and the additionality that is coming to the education and skills portfolio. I should say that that has been welcomed by a range of different stakeholders.

Yes, of course—

No, but it goes some way towards making progress. I recall that we discussed this issue this time last year, Mr Rennie, and I am sure that you will welcome the additional funding in the budget again this year to provide that uplift. The situation will continue to be a challenge, but we will work with the PVI sector on it.

More broadly, I am cognisant that we cannot deliver on aspirations for ELC without the PVI sector. We need to have a strong PVI sector to supplement additional delivery of ELC by local authorities across the country.

The additionality for pay has been welcomed. I recognise the challenge that the member has raised on a number of occasions with my colleague Ms Don-Innes in the chamber. I am happy to engage with him on that further if he has further views, but there is additionality in the budget to meet that budget ask.

In what respect? Would you like to set a timescale on it?