I think that it is. Some poverty has become more ingrained, particularly as a result of austerity. I am trying not to politicise the discussion, but we undoubtedly live in a state in which welfare is, to a large extent, provided by the UK Government, and there is sometimes a disconnect between its policy and ours in Scotland. That can harm some of our most vulnerable people and can mean that the poverty-related attainment gap has become more stubborn over time and harder to move.

Having a political focus on that has been good for our schools. When I was a teacher at the Royal high school in Edinburgh in 2011, I heard a presentation, which was probably given by the local authority, about the percentage of our young people who left school without any qualifications. Essentially, we told a cohort of young people who did not obtain 33.33 per cent in their prelim that they could not go on to sit the higher exam because it was not for them. We did not even allow them the opportunity to sit the exam for that qualification. Therefore, I do not underestimate the shift in mindset that has taken place in our schools to get us to a place where we are doing better at supporting young people to achieve.

However, the member is right: austerity and the grinding impact of poverty have become much more challenging to deal with. That is why we see local authorities such as Falkirk Council and Dundee City Council using the additionality of the PEF money to support people with paying their bills by employing income-maximisation officers. I do not think that anyone who was around when we launched that fund in 2016 would have countenanced that. I absolutely support headteachers’ decisions, but we need to think again about educational interventions and about the fact that schools are mopping up things that other services should be providing.

The Government does a lot of work to track the on-going destinations of young people when they leave school. There is also a participation measure—we will come on to that—which captures those in S4 to S6, so it includes those who are in school and the initial leavers’ destinations. There is also data on young people six months on from leaving school. We track that data, and Skills Development Scotland is involved in tracking it across the piece.

For me, the concerning thing is that there has been a slight widening of the gap in relation to positive destinations this year. We have seen that gap widen to 4.3 percentage points, which is an increase on the previous year’s gap of 3.7 percentage points. There has been a slight increase, but it is still the second-narrowest gap on record, which speaks to the totality of the situation—albeit over a long time trajectory; I accept Mr Rennie’s point that it dates back to 2009-10. Nonetheless, that tells us a story of improvement.

The initial destinations themselves are wide and varied. To go back to Mr Mason’s question, part of the answer is that the pathways that are now on offer to young people in school are wider and more varied than when the Scottish attainment challenge was introduced. There is now such a range of different pathways for children and young people to pursue, and the initial destination statistics capture some of that with regard to the next steps.

I will bring in officials to talk about the evaluation work that we have undertaken. Dave Gregory’s team has led a lot of good work on sharing good practice at the national level and on getting schools to work with one another on what has worked.

However, the PEF sampling work that David Leng and Alison Taylor have been involved in has also been heartening. I cannot speak for officials, but they can speak for themselves about the transformative impacts of the funding in our schools. We need to learn from the PEF sampling work, particularly when we look to evaluate the totality of the spend across the 10-year period. Dave Gregory and David Leng might want to say more on those points.

I have not had it yet.

Which suggestions?

That goes back to my response to Mr Rennie: when you look at the totality across time, there has been an improvement in relation to on-going positive destinations. With regard to the broader view, I do not know which years you are comparing. Can you clarify that?

Do you mean with regard to closing the gap?

May I ask a question? My apologies, convener—I realise that I am here to be questioned.

Is the member talking about young people who are aged 15 who are not able to access a subject of their choice in school, for example?

I am not going to announce today a review of how we measure positive destinations, but I take the member’s point. SDS carries out the tracking for us in that regard. We track the longer-term trajectory of young people when they leave school, at intervals of three months and then nine months.

It might interest Mr Briggs to look at the data set from three months out then nine months out. There is a disconnect—we accept that. Beyond school, there are things that can be undertaken by Government, but other agencies are often involved in the delivery of support to a young person in that period of their life.

We also introduced the annual participation measure as part of the national improvement framework. That gives us a greater ability to measure the number of 16 to 19-year-olds who are in school, or perhaps at college or university, and gives us a truer picture of their progress across time.

There has been a slight increase, of 0.8 per cent, in participation between 2023 and 2024 for those in quintile 1—that is, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. In 2024, there was an 8.2 per cent gap in participation by 16 to 19-year-olds living in the 20 per cent most deprived and 20 per cent least deprived areas; that is the narrowest gap on record.

I take the member’s point, and it might be that some of his suggestions in relation to positive destinations are looked at in the round as part of the education reform that is more in Mr Dey’s space. Nevertheless, I will take that away from today’s meeting, convener. The member raises an important point, which has been rehearsed in the chamber previously.

Nonetheless, I go back, in the round, to my original response to Mr Rennie—which I know that he does not like—that 95.7 per cent of our young people are now in a positive destination. That is to be welcomed and celebrated. These young people were being let down by the education system before we started giving them that extra support, tracking, advice and encouragement. I think that we have completely turned around the way in which we support some young people.

To reiterate David Gregory’s point, not so long ago, in terms of tracking, it was university or nothing after school—there was maybe a job, or college, but there was often a gap. We have become far better at tracking that progress across time. We can undoubtedly improve—I accept that. I think that that is the point that the member makes.

However, I go back to the comments from Gillian Campbell-Thow, the headteacher who was on the radio with Mr Briggs. I confess that a colleague tipped me off to that interview: I do not routinely sit listening to the radio waiting for Mr Briggs to come on. Gillian Campbell-Thow said in response to Mr Briggs last week that

“We need to look at the currency of these qualifications before we start saying that you’ll be doing a disservice to children in having 15 per cent of all school leavers leave without anything.”

Her point was really about looking at the totality of achievements.

I think—I have reflected on this with officials—that some of our measurements are not showing the totality of the picture of the achievements of all our young people.