Chamber and committees

I just want to check, Mr Kerr, whether you are referring to the remainder of Education Scotland.

The member makes a reasonable point. I have no overt concerns with the financial memorandum as currently drafted—I see Clare Hicks indicating that she wants to come in, but I just want to say that the point is about additionality, and, if that is the case, we will get into party politics, which I do not really want to do in this evidence session. The question, though, is this: from where will that additionality come? Mr Kerr is right to say that if we want to drive meaningful change, we will have to resource it.

I am watching a number of UK Government budget lines. For example, I am watching what is going to happen with VAT, because the additional consequentials are apparently coming to Scotland. When? I do not know. I am watching for the 6,500 extra teachers that were promised down south and the consequentials that I expect to flow from that. I am watching for the breakfast clubs that were committed to and the consequentials that I expect to flow to my budget.

I do not disagree with Mr Kerr, but I am, to some extent, constrained. I do not want to be overtly political—although I probably have just been, convener—but I must ask this: from where in the Scottish Government’s budget should funding come, if Mr Kerr does not think that the present funding is appropriate? If he wants to specify that, I will be happy to look at it.

Clare, did you want to come in on the financial memorandum? We will set the party politics aside.

As cabinet secretary, I have met staff in all organisations on a number of occasions—and with their professional associations, too, I should say. Civil servants leading on the bill have engaged with staff throughout the process, and I think that there were staff sessions on the bill. In addition, trade union membership from the SQA sits on the transition board, so staff have been engaged throughout the process.

This has undoubtedly caused a degree of concern for staff, because they are going through a reform agenda. Our no compulsory redundancies commitment has helped in that regard, and we have tried to work with them throughout the process, but it has been an unsettling time for them. After all, we are talking about change.

I will bring in Clare Hicks, as she has indicated that she wants to come in.

Reaching young people who are disengaged is a challenge for everyone across Government, not just me in the education portfolio. Fundamentally, we need to think about how we engage the next generation in political structures. That is not just about education reform. You are going to get a speech from a former modern studies teacher now, Mr Mason, but our education system has a role to play in engaging young people in politics and decision making.

I hear your view about meeting young people who might be the—I am not sure whether I should repeat the way that you described them.

You are saying that the committee does not have a view on this, so I will await your deliberations. We need to be careful about how we specify that and what it might look like. I am not ruling that out. I have heard various views—there is not a uniform view on it. I will bring in Clare Hicks.

Yes, I know—they are.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Education (Scotland) Bill. I have watched with great interest the evidence that the committee has taken and I look forward to engaging with members and hearing their views throughout today’s meeting.

The bill represents a single but significant component of our on-going programme of education reform, building on the findings in the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and those in Professor Ken Muir’s review. It also provides the scaffolding on which other non-legislative reforms are being built and it will act as a catalyst for a range of changes that we need to see right across our education system.

The establishment of qualifications Scotland and His Majesty’s chief inspector of education is fundamentally about improving pupil outcomes and better supporting our teachers. National education bodies have been too distant from those whom they serve and are often perceived by teachers as being an impediment to delivering excellent teaching in the classroom.

As the committee knows, various reviews have also confirmed that, if trust in those bodies is to be restored, pupils and teachers must be put at the centre of decision making. The bill includes provisions that will support efforts to enable the organisations to build that trust, restore confidence and change their ways of working to more readily involve stakeholders and increase the transparency of decision making. The requirement under the bill for the board of qualifications Scotland to include practising teachers across school and college settings and a person with knowledge of the interests of those who undertake qualifications will provide greater diversity and challenge in the operation of the board.

The creation of the learner and teacher charters, which will be developed with users, will provide greater transparency and accountability. The statutory learner interest committee and teacher and practitioner interest committee will ensure that the views of a wide range of pupils, teachers and other people directly influence the organisation’s decision making.

For the inspectorate, the bill will enshrine in legislation the independence of inspection and reporting. It will move the balance of power from ministers to the chief inspector, which is a significant change. That will increase public confidence in the independence of inspection and, perhaps most important, ensure that the strengths and challenges that they identify directly drive improvement.

It is essential that the new inspectorate engages with the views of education stakeholders and partners. The bill will introduce strengthened governance arrangements, including the establishment of an advisory council, which will ensure that wider perspectives are brought to bear while maintaining the crucial independence of the chief inspector.

However, legislation alone will not create the level of change in practice and culture that is needed for qualifications Scotland and His Majesty’s inspectorate of education. In addition to our work on the bill, we are looking at how qualifications Scotland and HMIE will operate to ensure that they will work differently and be more responsive. For example, I have commissioned the Scottish Qualifications Authority to look at options for qualifications Scotland’s leadership structures and the establishment of a schools unit in the new body. That unit would support teachers to deliver excellent teaching, learning and assessment, ensuring the best outcomes for our children and young people.

Work is continuing at pace with regard to the new centre for teaching excellence and we are progressing the refocus of Education Scotland to lead on the curriculum improvement cycle and support curriculum design and delivery. That work is well under way, as the committee will be aware.

Our national bodies need to be high performing, accessible and transparent. They must garner the trust of the teachers and children and young people whom they are there to support. It is vital to achieve reform that is right for our system and that creates meaningful change in practice and culture. I believe that the bill, along with the range of non-legislative reforms that are already under way, will deliver that for the benefit of pupils and teachers alike.

I look forward to hearing from committee members.

I agree with that.

I have been listening to the committee’s evidence on that with great interest. As Mr Adam will be well aware, some of the challenge in relation to the SQA and how it is perceived by teachers, parents and pupils dates way back to before the pandemic. In the previous parliamentary session, I sat on the other side of the committee table with some members who are still on the committee, and we debated a range of these issues. What happened during the pandemic undoubtedly crystallised the need for significant change, and I think that the way in which we are approaching that is really important.

It cannot be seen as a rebranding; it has to feel different. Over a number of years, teachers have been frustrated by some of their engagement with the SQA, and that situation has to get better. I have been really taken by the evidence that the committee has heard from School Leaders Scotland and the Educational Institute of Scotland that things have improved in the past year and that engagement is already looking and feeling different. That is part of the story. The bill crystallises the need for change.

It is important to set out that, fundamentally, we still need a qualifications body to deliver the exam diet. If you consider Professor Louise Hayward’s recommendations, you will see that at no point did she suggest that we get rid of all final examinations, although she did suggest that for national 5s. She looked at rationalising the delivery of qualifications and, in particular, at having an approach in Scotland that really looks at high-stakes final examinations. As I said, we still need a body that will deliver our qualifications system, but that body must look different and it must interact with people differently. To my mind, that is where a lot of the sense of frustration has come from.

The final point that I will make in response to your question is about rebuilding trust. The pandemic undoubtedly had an impact in eroding that trust. As the committee knows, particularly through the evidence sessions, I have been pretty pragmatic about that. I am of the view that having the new qualifications body is an imperative and that I cannot deliver on some of the aspirations in relation to Professor Hayward’s recommendations without the SQA really changing and becoming a new front-footed organisation that has the views of teachers, pupils and parents at its heart.