Chamber and committees

Under curriculum for excellence, we do not have a prescriptive curriculum. We might come on to talk about some of the challenge in relation to what that means for particular subjects. However, there is flexibility in the broad general education because, essentially, the theory of CFE allows teachers and local decision makers—headteachers—to decide on the curriculum content for their local context.

You asked about specific guidance. Education Scotland has a role to play in providing such guidance. Sometimes, the challenge for Government is not that we need more guidance but that we need more prescription. Towards the end of last year, I was listening to some of the critique around PISA. Some people advocate bringing much more prescription back to the curriculum in Scotland and some say that there has been too much flexibility.

We need to balance that very carefully. That is why I have committed to the curriculum improvement cycle, starting with maths education. The fact that we are starting with maths is predicated on the PISA results, but it also relates to consideration of some of last year’s national 5 maths examination results. We need to improve the delivery of the maths curriculum. We will then move on to look at English and literacy more broadly.

Education Scotland can provide explicit guidance, but my question to the committee—and this is an issue for us to consider in the wider debate about qualifications reform—is whether that is what the system is looking for. Is the system looking for explicit guidance or is it looking for prescription? The way in which we deliver CFE is such that we do not prescribe curriculum content, but some people advocate that we should have a level of prescription.

There is a tension between the founding principles of curriculum for excellence and how it operates as a curriculum, but perhaps we need to consider those issues in the context of the broader mix of qualifications reform. I am keen to hear views on that, because some people in the system say that we have gone too far in relation to flexibility, and that what teachers are looking for is a bit more prescription and direction to help them to set out the learning outcomes for their young people.

I thank Ms Callaghan for her question. She will know that we prioritise support for wellbeing in our schools through the provision of counsellors in every secondary school and through the expectation in curriculum for excellence that wellbeing is a responsibility for all. All teachers have a responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of their young people.

Ms Callaghan spoke about anxiety, particularly among our young people. I am always struck by the fact that, although the pandemic had an impact on us all, our young people were particularly affected. Their brain development has been impacted by a change in how they consume information. We have had great debates in the chamber in recent times about the use of mobile phones; I saw some members on their phones earlier on, during the budget discussion.

We need to be mindful of the fact that the way in which our young people consume information—indeed, the way in which we all consume information—has changed, which can lead to an increase in anxiety. We need to look at the issue in a bit more detail. Part of the challenge in relation to behaviour and changes in behaviour is informed by an increasing sense of anxiety and worry. Last year, some evidence was published that showed that our young people felt safe returning to school after the pandemic—was that in PISA?

Yes, the SQA is feeding in to that. On the member’s point—he can correct me if I am wrong—when I assumed post, I wanted to introduce an element of objectivity into the process, because the previous critique of the Government was that we should not allow organisations to reform themselves, which I accept. That is why we have made changes to the governance approach, including by bringing some of Mr Dey’s work into the same space and my chairing a board in which the organisations that have to reform all come together. That may give some answer to the member’s question.

The organisation will not disappear, because there will still need to be a qualifications organisation, and we will still need a body to run and administer our qualifications, so it has to feed into the process. However, on the wider point—and, I suppose, the cultural shift—the organisation needs to become more fleet of foot, from my experience. That is why we will embed teacher voice and learner voice in the governance structures, because the organisation needs to listen to the profession. I am keen to work with the organisation on how we take that forward.

I will defer to Sam Anson on the role that the PTR plays in our calculation—it might be that we factor that in. In my correspondence with local authorities, I have asked them to set out any extenuating circumstances that might explain the situation. For some, there might be a rationale. I have heard responses from local authorities that account for some of the change. We need to be mindful of that, but there have been other reductions in the system that I do not find to be acceptable, particularly when, at a time of extreme financial pressure, we are providing that additionality and protecting it. We expect teacher numbers to be protected in all local authorities.

We would expect to see details of that additionality in their returns. Last year, the committee took evidence on this point from someone, who shall remain nameless, who talked about the role of teachers and other professionals in education being important. I do not think that we can replace a teacher in a classroom with people who are not trained teachers, so we need to be mindful of that.

In an arrangement between the Government and COSLA, we agreed that the additionality would be protected for teacher numbers—that is what our local authorities signed up to deliver. They understood the rationale behind the approach and the requirements around the funding. That is why I have the opportunity to hold back some of the funding at a certain point in the financial year. Some local authorities might not have thought that we would do that, because it did not happen last year, but I retain the power to do so.

We will look in detail at the four or five instances in which there have been significant falls in the numbers. In some of the local authorities that Ms Duncan-Glancy mentioned, from memory, we are talking about falls of one or two. We should look at those instances, but we will look in detail at where we have seen greater falls.

Ms Duncan-Glancy makes a point about other areas where the money might have been spent. I am happy to hear that rationale. We set out the requirements, and we will look at the responses in detail, recognising that, for all local authorities, this has been a challenging time, just as it has been for Government.

Tentatively I would say yes, but we need to work together more closely. It is fair to say that, in the past, Government and local government have sometimes had our challenges, some of which I have just rehearsed with Ms Duncan-Glancy around teacher numbers.

However, in my experience, COSLA has a pragmatic approach to the delivery of education at the local authority level. It wants to be transparent about what that means for the outcomes for our young people and wants to support the improvement of those outcomes.

It is my job, as cabinet secretary, to give local authorities the opportunity to deliver on those improvements in order to help our young people to succeed. We have reset some of the relationship with local government. I am not sure that I can give the committee a scorecard at the end of this year but, if Mr Kidd comes back to me next year, I will give him a mark out of 10 on how we have improved that relationship. Particularly, it is not just about having improved relationships but about working better to improve outcomes. That is why the accountability framework that we are working on with local authorities—particularly in relation to the variability across the school education system—is hugely important.

Yes, it is not one or the other.

Happy new year to you, convener, and to the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak about the education and skills budget. As members know, the overall context for the budget has been extremely challenging, as high inflation continues to place extreme pressure on public finances. That is on top of more than a decade of United Kingdom Government underinvestment, which has left our public services with little resilience.

In my portfolio and across the wider Scottish Government, we have had to take decisions to protect priorities that are aligned with our three missions of equality, opportunity and community while ensuring financial sustainability. Against that challenging backdrop, I am pleased that the education and skills budget has increased in resource by £128 million, or 4.3 per cent. The combined capital and resource budget has increased by almost £121 million—that is 3.4 per cent—in cash terms.

We continue to invest in high-quality funded early learning and childcare and wider family support. Overall, the Government will invest £1 billion in high-quality funded ELC next year. We remain committed to keeping the Promise to Scotland’s care-experienced children and young people, and we will continue our delivery of the whole family wellbeing programme.

We are fully funding our commitment to pay £12 an hour to staff in the private, voluntary and independent sectors who deliver ELC and children’s social care. We are investing more than £387 million in our teaching workforce. That includes £145 million to maintain teacher numbers, as well as £242 million as part of the teachers’ pay settlement, which is making Scottish teachers the best paid in the UK.

In addition, we have our investment of £1 billion in the Scottish attainment challenge over the parliamentary session to support closing the poverty-related attainment gap. We also remain committed to supporting a high-quality post-school education, research and skills system, with more than £2.4 billion of investment.

That is not to diminish the extremely challenging backdrop to the budget. Like every cabinet secretary, I have had to prioritise legal and contractual obligations in determining how to deploy the budget.

Throughout the budget process, I have deliberately sought to protect those who are most disadvantaged. An example of that is the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting families with the provision of free school meals at this time of financial uncertainty. We are starting the expansion of our offer to those who receive Scottish child payment this year, and budget has been provided for the infrastructure that is needed for delivery.

Similarly, we will make capital investment of £10 million in targeted device and connectivity provision for our most disadvantaged households with children.? That will bring a range of benefits for families who are struggling with the cost of living crisis while tackling digital exclusion among our most deprived learners. That approach will enable access not only to digital tools and resources for learning but to digital society and online public services, which will expand the investment’s impact beyond learners to their wider families.

This budget protects education spending throughout the lifetime of a child’s education, despite the headwinds of decisions that have been taken by the UK Government. Scotland is the only part of the UK to offer 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and for all eligible two-year-olds, regardless of their parents’ working status. That puts children first.

We have the highest level of spending per pupil in the UK, with the highest number of teachers per pupil. All primary school pupils in primaries 1 to 5, all children in special schools, and eligible pupils in primary 6 through to secondary 6 can benefit from free school meals in Scotland. That is the most generous national offer of any nation in the UK, saving families, on average, £400 per child per year. Those who need the greatest support will receive it, including through our investment of £1 billion over this parliamentary session to close the poverty-related attainment gap.

Following on from that, we are taking action to support our colleges, universities and skills system with more than £2.4 billion of investment. For those who wish to move into higher education, our long-standing commitment to free tuition remains unwavering, saving students in Scotland nearly £28,000 each and ensuring that the ability to learn is not predicated on the ability to pay.

I will finish there, but I very much look forward to discussing the budget settlement in more detail with you this morning.

Over the weekend, I listened back to my minister’s contribution to the committee, and I think that he set out a pretty pragmatic approach in relation to where we are at the current time.

As the committee will be aware, when I was appointed, back in March 2023, I inherited a teachers’ pay deal that required to be funded from my portfolio. I therefore had to make a number of really tough choices pretty quickly to fund that pay deal. The committee will, I am sure, go on to talk about the detail of some of those budget lines.

In November this year, the Deputy First Minister published details of where those reductions had come from. To be blunt, those in-year savings had to be delivered in order to balance my budget and pay for a teachers’ pay deal that had been negotiated prior to my time in post.

Those requirements for in-year savings have been baked into the settlement for this year’s financial allocation. I recognise the challenge in that regard, and I am sure that we will come on to talk about that specifically in relation to this budget line.

The allocations for colleges, in particular, will, for the next financial year, look broadly similar to those that colleges have experienced in the past financial year. I accept that there will be challenges in that respect—as we have heard today, the inflationary impacts are not going away for any organisation—and I am keen to work with our colleges specifically on what that will mean for them.

As Mr Dey pointed out, the challenge that Government has faced throughout this year has been the uncertainty around our budget allocation. I hope that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes back with the spring update and statement, there will be additionality coming to the Scottish Government. I would certainly request that it came to my portfolio, as the convener would expect.

However, there is an opportunity to rebalance. To be blunt, we have been through a period of extreme financial pressure on the Scottish Government budget, which has meant that we have had to meet a number of record pay deals across the piece. I think that it was quite right for the Scottish Government to deliver those things, including the teachers’ pay deal, but it has meant that we have less money overall to go round, and we need to be pragmatic about what that means for every portfolio, including my own.

Just for clarity, convener, are we talking about the Scottish Funding Council cuts or the wider position?