Chamber and committees

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.

Last academic year, the SFC introduced a tolerance of 2 per cent in college credit targets. This year, it has introduced new flexibilities. I will continue to engage with the SFC, as will Mr Dey, in relation to the assessment of those flexibilities and how those allow our colleges to become more sustainable in the longer term, which is the challenge.

Yes, but that is why the teacher audit is the answer. It will give us the granular data at national level that we will need to plan for, say, the reduction in teacher class contact time, which I think is really important. We will need additional teachers in the system to deliver on that commitment, and we need to be mindful of what that will look like.

I am concerned by some of the evidence that the committee has heard on teacher numbers, because we could get to a position where it might be suggested that, if I just let go, everything would be okay. I go back to the position of the previous cabinet secretary last December. That was not the case then, and I would really worry about our moving away from that model.

However, the member has made an important point. In my experience, the number of teachers in a school is usually calculated on the basis of the population and the number of pupils in the school. If your school roll is increasing, you might, say, gain a depute, but those calculations are made at the local authority level.

I do not think that there are extra teachers floating around in the system, if that is what last week’s panel was suggesting. What I have seen from my experience in schools is that any additionality in the system is used to close the poverty-related attainment gap. As the member alluded to, that might come not in the form of classroom teachers, but in the form of attendance officers, health and wellbeing support or whatever.

I go back to the point that the audit of where we are nationally will give us a granular picture. There were some recent press reports—I am not looking at Mr Rennie—about the number of classes with more than 30 pupils, but my current pupil teacher ratio is extremely low. We need to look at how class sizes work at a local authority level, given that we have more teachers in the system now. I am sorry if I have presupposed your question, Mr Rennie.

There are inherent risks, but I go back to Shirley-Anne Somerville’s experience last December—the Government provided an extra £145 million, but there were fewer teachers to show for it. Trust is not a one-way street. When the Government provides that additionality, we will look to recoup it if it is not invested in teachers. Fundamentally, that is because we believe that good-quality learning and teaching is what makes the difference in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

I would like us to go back, in our parliamentary debates and more broadly in Scottish education, to our conversation about good-quality pedagogy and how it can make a difference in our schools. That is the silver bullet in all of this, but some of the recent discussion about closing the gap has moved us away from that. We need to go back to talking about the role of the teacher, the importance of good-quality learning and teaching and how that can raise attainment for all and close the gap.

On the practicalities of my recouping it?

As cabinet secretary, I have not discussed that with colleges. I suspect that Mr Dey has, as Minister for Higher and Further Education.

Mr Greer raises an important point about the accessibility of childcare and where that provision exists. If that is a bar to how people engage with their education or it prevents their engagement with it because there are no childcare facilities, that would really concern me.

I do not want to comment on the specifics of individual colleges making decisions about their estate—that is for them. More generally, however, the issue is challenging. I would be keen to pick that up with Mr Dey, although I think that he has been pursuing the matter with the college sector.

At this point, I will bring in Stephen Pathirana.