Chamber and committees

I read some of the evidence that the committee took from Professor Humes. I met him in the summer after my appointment, because he has expressed many views on the Scottish Government’s performance on a variety of different topics over the years. His points about cosy conformity are quite accurate. There is not a lot of grit or challenge in the system. There is lots of grit directed my way, because I am the lightning rod for grit—I am the cabinet secretary—but I refer back to my response to questions from other members in the previous committee meeting about accountability at the local authority level. We seem to have forgotten that local authorities have such accountability, so we need to take the opportunity to reset some of that through the Verity house agreement.

I talked about the accountability framework in my response to a member earlier. We need challenge and we need grit. Sometimes, in Scottish education, we become reliant on hearing from the same people about the same topics. I make that observation as a previous member of the committee and having observed some of the witnesses who have already appeared. We need to hear fresh voices.

We also need to hear from teachers. During the previous parliamentary session, when Ross Greer and I were on your predecessor committee, we would hold private evidence sessions with teachers. I do not know whether the committee has explored that idea. I recall that the committee was keen to come to my behaviour summits, but teachers would not feel comfortable if they thought that their views were being recorded for purposes such as a parliamentary debate. They benefit from private time with politicians listening to them.

The first school visit that I undertook when I took up my role was to the school in Edinburgh where I taught. I asked my officials, Edinburgh council representatives and the headteacher to leave the room so that I could talk to the staff honestly about what was going on. That really helped to inform some of my thinking in the early days after I took up my post.

Professor Humes is absolutely right that there is a cosy conformity. We need a bit more challenge. I welcome the challenge, because it is a huge part of the job of being a cabinet secretary, but we also need to ensure that the critical voices in the system, such as that of Professor Humes, are listened to and not managed.

We cannot reach a consensus with the critique of Scottish education, and that is okay. However, to drive improvement we need to be a bit more honest about that, because, as per Willie Rennie’s point, consensus has delivered the status quo. Perhaps the challenge around some of the deliverability is how we unpick some of that.

The £12 an hour—

The sustainable rates review gives us an opportunity to do that. Bluntly, we need the PVI sector to be operational in relation to how we deliver our childcare expansion. Willie Rennie and I have talked about that previously.

The £12 an hour commitment is important. The draft budget provides local authorities with an additional £16 million to pay for staff in the PVI sector who will deliver funded ELC from April this year. That demonstrates our commitment to the fair work agenda, but it also demonstrates our commitment to recognising the challenges in the PVI sector. We have discussed that previously. Willie Rennie might think that it is not enough, and the sector might think that it is not enough. Okay—I would like to hear from where in my budget the additional money should come.

I accept the premise of Willie Rennie’s question. My point was that I am dealing with an extraordinarily challenging budget settlement, as are all cabinet secretaries, as a result of an unfair allocation from the UK Government. We can have a debate about that another day, but let us look at what I have for my portfolio.

The additional money to pay £12 an hour that has flowed to my portfolio as a result of our commitment is to be welcomed. I recognise that some local authorities might pay more than that, but there has been significant investment—from the First Minister, actually—in that specific commitment. It helps to bridge the gap between the PVI sector and the local authority sector. It also means an increase of about £2,000 a year for eligible staff who work full time. That is to be welcomed.

I recognise that challenges will remain. The sustainable rates review gives us an opportunity to reset some of that.

However, we need to work with the PVI sector on delivery of what that will look like. I have heard some of the critique around that, including from Mr Rennie today, but the reality is that there is nothing in my budget to meet the extra additional money that is being asked for. If we need to look again at the offer, additional money will need to come from somewhere else, as it cannot come from my budget. I say again that we are going into a round of budget negotiations in the chamber and there will be opportunities for Opposition parties to put forward suggestions.

I hear Willie Rennie’s point that it is my problem, as cabinet secretary. I accept that. However, we have taken direct action in the budget to support the PVI sector. Such action had not been taken previously. I hope that Willie Rennie recognises that.

And he has done so.

I have not yet responded to Professor Hayward’s review, so I am not going to respond in committee today.

Not only do I have to respond to Professor Hayward’s review, but there are a plethora of different reports on my desk. The point that I made at the previous committee meeting was that we need a bit more connectivity between what is happening in the lifelong learning and skills portfolio, which is Graeme Dey’s responsibility, and schools.

We will also be working to a similar timeline—the end of March—if that helps the committee.

I will respond first to Mr Macpherson’s point about CFE being rushed. I think that Mr Russell was Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning when we implemented changes to curriculum qualifications. I was out of the classroom at the time, but I was writing resources to support the implementation of the qualifications. We delayed the changes by a couple of years in response to requests from the teaching profession. We then delayed the implementation of the new higher at the behest of the teaching unions.

However, I agree with Mr Macpherson about the premise behind how we implement qualifications reform. We must think carefully about how we deliver that on the ground. Sometimes there is a bit of a disconnect between what cabinet secretaries or ministers might say in the chamber and the reality in our communities. Given that education is delivered locally, we must really think about how change is delivered and communicated, how staff are supported and how they are given time to develop. For example, I remember trying to write support materials for the new qualifications because the SQA had published only part of the documentation. We must think about the role of the new qualifications organisation in all that. I go back to Professor Louise Hayward’s observations that reform will take time and that we must set out the trajectory and plan for the implementation of changes to qualifications in the future. It will be a big change for the profession if I accept all the recommendations in her report. I am keen to hear members’ views on that when we have a wider debate.

The SCQF has a strong role to play in reform, approach and attitudes, and in establishing parity of esteem. I might have spoken about this in our discussion earlier this morning. Last week, I was in a school in Glasgow where young people were involved in the school ambassador programme. The SCQF’s accreditation of qualifications is really important in setting out to parents and carers the value that qualifications have, so that they understand that, for example, a higher English might be benchmarked to something that has the same number of points attached to it. The young people at that school in Glasgow were telling me about their school’s approach. It has careers fairs where teachers sit at different desks and tell them about qualifications that they might never have heard of. I am looking at Clare Hicks to see whether she can expand on that, but she was not at the visit; neither was Laura Murdoch. From memory, one of the young people told me that she is now going to university to study for a qualification in criminology, because she had an approach from one of her teachers who had told her how that qualification could be used and which careers it could lead to.

We sometimes prescribe too much. We have had a conversation about flexibility, but schools are doing that work anyway. Part of the reform agenda needs to involve pulling together a bit more consistency. Skills Development Scotland and the careers service, in particular, have a role to play in that.

I visited Glenrothes high school, in my constituency, before school started. There is an SDS careers officer embedded in the school community and he knows all the kids there—some kids who have left school still come back to him for advice. I know that not every careers adviser works in that way; Mr Dey spoke at the committee last week about the role of the careers service and how that might change in the future.

That is why, as I said in my opening comments, we cannot divorce what is happening in that space from wider school reform. Parity of esteem for careers has to be part of our response, too. I think that we now have a much better understanding of parity of esteem than we previously did when Mr Macpherson and I were at school—we were definitely at school at the same time, although he might be younger than me.

That understanding has changed, but we need to do more in that space. Nevertheless, when I go into schools, I am always blown away by the number of qualifications that they are now running and the breadth of the offer. We have talked to some extent about narrowing the curriculum, and there is perhaps some truth in that with regard to traditional subjects. However, we can see that subjects such as criminology and higher photography are now being delivered in schools. A range of qualifications are now being delivered, which speaks to Mr Macpherson’s ask around parity of esteem and the value that schools place on such qualifications.

Absolutely—I recognise the member’s point. There is still a hierarchy, and we have not yet got to where we should be on parity of esteem. James Withers made those points pretty vociferously in his report. We need to better understand that issue.

However, our schools are doing a really good job on pathways such as apprenticeships. I have visited a number of schools where colleges now come in to deliver some courses, or young people leave in the afternoon to go to a course. In Glenrothes high school, some pupils go to the nearby college in the afternoon to study a childcare course. In the past, those things might not have happened. There is now much greater connectivity across the education system than ever before.