Chamber and committees

Michelle Thomson touches on an important issue. If the committee wishes, I can rehearse all the statistics that I have at my fingertips on Government investment in education, but the substantive point that the member makes is this: given that there is additionality in relation to spend per pupil and pupil support assistants, data on which was published yesterday, why is the need so great?

Part of the issue relates to the fact that, in 2010, as the committee knows, we changed the way in which we measure additional support needs, which has led to some increase in the numbers. However, other external factors are driving an increase in the number of additional support needs pupils. For example, I think that just over 5 per cent of the figure is accounted for by pupils who have English as an additional language, and there are wider factors around the increase, which the committee might be aware of.

More generally—I might have made this point to the committee last year—I note that, as one headteacher put it to me, during the pandemic, when other services stepped back, schools stepped up. I think that schools are now filling a void that other services have historically filled. That adds to the growing feeling that the system is under an inordinate amount of pressure. In the past—even 10 or 15 years ago—schools were very focused on providing education. I know that members are aware of this, because they spend a lot of time visiting schools in their constituencies, but schools now provide services that they did not provide five or 10 years ago. Part of the pressure that the system faces comes from that broader approach to the role of school education, with some schools providing community support that they did not provide in the past.

There are a range of things that the Government can do in. To some extent, my answer goes back to Mr Kerr’s point about whether responsibility sits at a local or national level. One of the things that the Government can do is ring fence. The committee might want to push me on this point, but I think that, in recent times, the Government has taken a principled stance on ring fencing teacher numbers and teacher funding. Because of the additional £145 million that has been invested, there has been, as the statistics published yesterday show, an increase in pupil support assistants—the additionality is for those, too.

There are actions that the Government can take centrally to protect funding for certain areas. Others might disagree with that approach, but I think that it is important in protecting inputs—and, indeed, outputs, because we know that, if we have more staff in the system, we help to improve outcomes for our children and young people.

More broadly, as I alluded to in my opening commentary, the additional support for learning action plan tells a good story of the progress that we have made. Laura Meikle might want to talk about some of the specifics around that. We are not where we should be, partly because of the pandemic, but it is important to recognise that we have been able to make key progress in a number of different areas.

I will touch on a final point. We have mentioned education reform. The committee will know that, in the coming weeks and months, I will be bringing forward legislation on a range of new bodies that will replace the current examinations body and Education Scotland, and that the inspectorate function will come out of that. I invite members to consider the role of those bodies in supporting young people with additional support needs. I know that the committee has taken evidence on the support that is currently available from Education Scotland. My question is this: in the new and challenging post-pandemic education world that we are all living in, could that support be better provided? There is an opportunity for the proposed centre for teaching excellence to deliver some of that support.

I will bring in Laura Meikle to talk about some of the specifics of the ASL action plan.

Indeed it does.

No parent or carer should have to fight for the rights that their children are entitled to under the 2004 act—they should have that support. That is my starting point. After all, as well as being the education secretary, I am a constituency MSP. I am sure that you all receive constituency correspondence on such issues, as I do in my local capacity.

At a national level, I will reflect on the evidence that the committee has taken on the role of the tribunal. The tribunal should be the backstop; it is the last place where we want parents to end up. They should not have to go there, because a number of other remedies are open to them to consider with regard to resolving challenges with their local authority over support for their child. For a start, they can make a complaint to the local authority, and there are also the options of mediation and independent adjudication.

A number of interventions can be taken before the tribunal stage, and, through the ASL action plan, there is an opportunity for us to be clearer about them to ensure that parents know about them and their rights and that they should not have to escalate their case to the tribunal. We might come back to that issue, but the action plan will improve everyone’s understanding.

I should also say that there is the opportunity, under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, for parents and carers to escalate their case to me. That happens very rarely, but that option is open to them. The point is that we do not want parents to have to go through the tribunal process, because it is extraordinarily stressful and is not good for the young person. It would be much better if we could resolve the issues at local authority level.

I will continue to work with COSLA on the matter. When I meet it today as part of the SAGRABIS work, we will undoubtedly touch on the ASL action plan.

Again, that is a matter for the local authority in question. I note that, as an MSP, I receive similar correspondence on these issues, and part of the challenge—I made this point to Ms Duncan-Glancy—concerns the options that are open to parents and carers.

It is worth saying that we fund advocacy services to work with parents to make them aware of their rights in this space. However, the landscape is currently a bit cluttered, and I think that the ASL action plan will allow us to pull together some of the advice for parents and carers so that they know what their rights are. Equally, we need to work with COSLA and with individual local authorities, because we do not want to get to the tribunal stage. A number of interventions can be made—for example, mediation is often a really good way of resolving some of the challenges. Parents should not be having to escalate their case to the tribunal process, which can cause them—and, of course, their child—a great deal of stress.

Absolutely. Laura Meikle might want to speak about that.

I might bring in Laura Meikle to talk about some of the opportunities. More broadly, Mr Kidd asks whether I can direct how local authorities build their schools. That would create a bit of tension, so, as with most things that we do in education, a partnership with COSLA would probably be best.

The evidence that the committee has heard on the issue is really important. School buildings, and the design of learning places, can impact on attainment, particularly for children with additional support needs. Buildings can be much more challenging for them, so where they learn is important.

I will bring in Laura Meikle to talk about the code of practice.

I do not know the specifics of that example, but I am happy to look at that if the trade union representative is able to share the details with me. Suffice it to say that no child should be being educated in a cupboard.

With regard to the code of practice, there is specific guidance on the suitability of school buildings.

No, that is not the Government’s policy. It is worth saying that the statistics that were published yesterday show a slight increase in the number of teachers who have ASN as their main subject.

A common theme of all my evidence to the committee today will be that we need to be mindful of the fact that local authorities, not the Government, employ our teachers. I put the challenge back to the member. Should it be for the Government to ring fence the funding, whether it be for teachers or classroom assistants? Should it be for the Government to direct local authorities and say that that is where they should invest the additionality from the Scottish Government? Local authorities are choosing to use that additionality right now to employ record numbers of pupil support assistants. That is making a difference, but it does not take away from the role of specialist teachers. I hope that the member understands that there is a challenge because I do not employ our teachers.

In her response to Ross Greer, Clair Henderson covered the ask on training and the Bute house commitment to accreditation and support for pupil support assistants, which I accept. We need to support training far better than we do currently. I think that it is fair to say that there is a disparate approach across the country, and there are ways in which we are going to support the training through that commitment. I am keen to give an update to the committee. It should have been given before the end of last year, of course, but officials have been rather busy with a few other things, so we want to bring forward that important work.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point about additional support needs teachers, can we just remember that, because of the act, the impetus since 2004 has been on all teachers to provide a level of additional support? All teachers in Scotland should be providing, and do provide, additional support to their pupils. They do that every day.

There is still a role for specialists, but let us remember that the ring fencing is not just about protecting pupil support assistants and increasing their numbers. Local authorities have also chosen, in some instances, to use that additionality to employ specialist teachers. That is a decision that they have at their disposal.

I suppose that the challenge that Ms Duncan-Glancy puts to me is this: is it for the Government to direct local authorities in how many specialist teachers they employ in their schools? Is it for the Government to ring fence that?