Chamber and committees

Pam Duncan-Glancy has made a number of points about workload and class sizes. If members want me to talk through all those things, I could be here until 12 o’clock.

Let us not pretend that every teacher in Scotland teaches a class of 33. That is absolutely not the case. If a teacher teaches a practical subject, for example, their class size will be capped at 20, I think. There are a variety of class sizes across Scotland.

I have been working with the teaching unions on workload because I recognise the challenge in that regard. However, workload is a monolithic term that we have to get into and understand. What are we referring to when we talk about workload? Incidentally, workload in Fife will look different from workload in Dundee, because local authorities ask teachers to do different things. Let us be pragmatic when we talk generically about things such as workload. I know that the teaching unions like to talk about those things but, to make a difference, we really need to understand what we mean.

One of the things that we removed from the workload was the outcome and assessment standards around qualifications. I think that Mr Swinney did that some years ago. We are now looking at reintroducing a level of continuous assessment, and I know that the teaching unions are supportive of that. The workload associated with that in respect of the new qualifications will need to be carefully judged, particularly for secondary teachers.

I will segue to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s substantive point, which was about mental health. We have a positive story to tell in relation to the counselling support that we have been able to provide in every secondary school in Scotland. That support, which used not to exist, is now embedded. That is important. It is not teachers who are delivering that support. We can learn from that model.

To go back to the original question, how do we embed substantive specialist provision where that is needed? I accept that it is needed, and I look forward to working with COSLA on that. To go back to Mr Kerr’s point, this is about having a joint approach because I, as the cabinet secretary, cannot direct COSLA. However, we need to take leadership at the national level. My setting out expectations of the use of specialists is helpful in giving some of that direction, but we can get change at the local level by working with COSLA, whether that is on behaviour, attendance or supporting additional support needs.

I thank Mr Rennie for that. First, I will respond to the absence stats and to that measure in particular. I have mentioned already that the persistent absence stats are quite shocking, and I invite the committee to really interrogate those stats, as I have, because they show not only that we have regional variation in attendance across the country but that we have a cohort of young people who do not attend for up to 20 days of the school year. Think about the impact that that has on their educational outcomes. I am really concerned about that measure. As a Government, we had not looked at that measure since 2014-15. Therefore, we added that measure in last year, to give us more data in order to look at the real substantive problem.

The Children’s Commissioner for England produced really helpful advice in a report on absence in England, which I think was published last year. It contained a number of recommendations. She also quantified the cost of missing school in terms of academic attainment and positive destinations for those young people. All of that is bound up in our wider ambition, and GIRFEC is part of that.

At the start of the evidence session, we talked about mainstreaming. I still believe in mainstreaming—I think that it is the right approach—but I hear the anger and I hear the challenge. I want to reassure Mr Rennie and the rest of the committee that one of the first things that I did when I was appointed as cabinet secretary was speak to the teaching profession, which said, “We’re not ready for these reports. We’re not ready for reform. We need to work with you and we want to work with you, but we need to respond to the challenge right now.” Therefore, I paused education reform for a year.

We will bring forward proposals in the coming weeks, but, every step of the way, whether it is in the reform of Education Scotland, the qualifications body or our qualifications, our children with additional support needs must be at the forefront. They are part of the whole system; they are not the add-on that they might have been in 2004, which I think is where we were when the legislation was first passed. They are part of our system. In some parts of Scotland, half of our pupils have an additional support need, so we must get it right for them.

Right now, I see and hear the challenge, and I make a commitment to the committee to work with its members and across Government, because this is not just about education. In a number of different areas, we need to leverage the power of other parts of Government, whether that be health or justice, for example, in order to respond to the post-Covid challenges.

First, I very much welcome the committee’s inquiry, given that we are halfway through the ASL action plan. We will update that in the coming weeks, and we intend to learn from the committee’s output and use that learning to inform that process. In recent weeks, I have been considering a number of points that the committee has looked at, and I will touch on some of them now.

Some of the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the funding of ASL has been important, particularly the commentary from Audit Scotland, which talked about the current approach being not just a local authority question. We often think of ASN as existing in an education silo and believe that it is for education budgets to mop up the need. However, that is not the case.

We also need to be more mindful of different budgetary requirements and how we can be more holistic in that provision, so that our young people are better supported. I know that that point was also made by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which talked about how we could do that more holistically and not have a fight over funding. I am mindful of that point, because, fundamentally, our approach must be about getting it right for every child. Using GIRFEC as our measure, we need to reflect better on how that funding works on the ground. I know that the committee has taken evidence on how that can be fragmented in relation to delivery.

Those are two examples of things that jumped out at me in relation to funding, in particular, but I also note that the committee has heard about a number of other areas, such as the design of school buildings and how that can impact on additional support needs, and, more broadly, the way in which the pandemic has changed our education system. I am mindful that, as the committee knows, I will need to formally respond to the Hayward review in the coming weeks, and we must be mindful of the increase in additional support needs in that context and of the challenges in relation to behaviour. As Mr Kerr knows, the challenge that we face right now is attendance. All of those factors have been compounded since the pandemic.

Fundamentally, the educational offering now is completely different from the situation that pertained when we passed the 2004 act. As Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I am keen to hear the committee’s views on the evidence that you have taken, and I think that we can better reflect what you have to say in our updated ASL action plan. We have made progress on that, but I know that the committee will want to talk about some of the specifics around what it looks like in practice.

Yes.

Are you talking about specialist schools?

I was struck by the evidence that the committee took from the tribunal president on that. Overall, I agree with the position that was set out. The legislation relating to the presumption of mainstreaming predates the 2004 act; the right to mainstream education for those with an additional support need is enshrined in legislation.

In 2019, we published revised guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming, which is clear on the responsibilities on local authorities in weighing up their decisions in relation to tribunals. If there is any doubt about the suitability of mainstream provision, it is the role of the local authority to use the legislation to weigh up the measures. I was quite taken with the evidence that the committee took from the tribunal president, and we will seek to engage with her directly on the matter, particularly with regard to updating the 2004 act.

I have talked to Ms Duncan-Glancy about the range of options that are open to parents and carers before getting to the tribunal phase. It feels as though there is currently a weighting towards the tribunal phase, which is out of sync with where we should be in relation to that option. I am keen to engage with the tribunal president directly on that point.

I think that schools have evolved. I know of a number in my constituency that have a department of additional support, and parents will opt to send their child to that school because they presume that it has better provision for their child. We need to be mindful of that at national level, because local authorities are responding to local needs in respect of ASN, and they are putting in place specialist provision.

Again, I highlight that there are opportunities through the ASL action plan for us to work with local authorities. I do not want to dictate to local authorities, but I see an opportunity for us to firm up some of the guidance on how mainstream support might look.

When I first started teaching, which was a long time ago now, we had a department for support for learning, and we also had a behaviour support department. There was a completely different approach to supporting those with additional support needs. Over a number of years, we have moved to ASN being included in how teachers support their children and young people, but we also need to recognise the role of pupil support assistants and behaviour support assistants, which is why we protect that additional funding through ring fencing it.

I thank Mr Kidd for his question. I have looked at some of the evidence that the committee has taken on school design, and I am pretty sympathetic to it. As a Fife MSP, I know that Fife Council has decided that it would like that approach to education to be taken in a number of large schools. Indeed, I attended one of those schools—Madras college—which is in Mr Rennie’s constituency, as is Bell Baxter high school. In my constituency—or just outside it—there is Levenmouth academy, which brought two schools together and also includes Fife College, while there is a big campus in Dunfermline that has two secondary schools and Fife College going into it. Some local authorities are taking that approach.

Ms Martin described those schools as “superschools”. That is not the description that we would use, but some schools in Scotland are too big. They are too big for children with additional support needs, but they are also too big for our pupils and our staff—full stop. In big schools, teachers do not get to know their children and young people. If you think about the geography of that little area of Scotland—Fife—and all those little towns and villages coming together in a huge school, you will see that children just get lost. When we look at the challenges associated with behaviour and attainment, we see that it all comes down to relationships and teachers knowing their kids. We need to get further advice on school design, and I have asked officials to work on that via the Scottish Futures Trust, to which I think the committee has written on the issue.

Of course, the work that we do with local authorities is primarily about giving them funding; after all, the buildings belong not to us but to them. In recent years, we have given local authorities substantial amounts of funding to help them to improve the quality of the school estate, but, as I think you heard from ADES, the design of that estate often comes from local authorities. In my experience, though, some architects are mindful of local needs. They engage with parents and carers—and quite often with young people, too, about the things that they would like to see in their school.

I want to add something else into the mix. I do not think that the committee has taken evidence on it, but I had a parliamentary question on it from one Kenny Gibson not so long ago. He raised with me the issue of open-plan classrooms, and I think it is worth considering how they can contribute to challenges for those with learning and additional support needs. I see open-plan classrooms in many of the visits that I undertake. They can sometimes work well, but it can often be extremely difficult for some young people to concentrate in those environments. We must be mindful of that when we are talking about the challenges in other parts of our education system.

I am very taken with the evidence that the committee has heard on school design. We will certainly take that back to our work with COSLA and the Scottish Futures Trust. In December, I announced funding for phase 3 of the learning estate investment programme, and we are working with the SFT on the next funding approach. I know that the committee has asked the SFT for a written update, and I look forward to engaging with members on that, because it is an important point.

I am fairly certain that Fife Council had an input in that process.

There is guidance, which comes from the Scottish Futures Trust, and it sets out a range of parameters for school building design. The trust works with local authorities on that. It takes the Passivhaus approach, so schools are meant to be far more environmentally friendly. In my experience, it is for the SFT to work with local authorities on design specifications.