Chamber and committees

I am a bit confused about the difference between 2020 and 2021. My understanding is that, in 2020, the grades of state school pupils improved faster than those of pupils at private schools, and then, in 2021, the opposite seems to have happened and we seem to have seen a reverse of the progress in narrowing the gap that we saw the year before. Do you have an explanation for that? It is fine to talk about A grades, but, for a lot of young people who are looking to get qualifications and leave school with something meaningful, it just seems a bit odd. I am trying to understand what changed between 2020 and 2021.

Would you share that information with us, as an example?

I agree with your earlier comment that trust and transparency are important. I am not asking you to comment on this, but I personally feel that there was a lack of transparency in the run-up to this year’s grades being awarded, both from the pupils’ point of view and from the public point of view. The cabinet secretary said something quite different in Parliament to what was said on the news on 8 June: the assessment process was being carried out by teachers and they would submit the grades—no one was coming in to overrule them, to second guess them or to look at any other material; the teachers would decide the grades. People then heard about what the normal moderation process is. I am not trying to suggest that that is not what would have happened in a normal year, but I think there was a suggestion that the ACM was somehow different from what happened at the SQA—although, in reality, it was very similar to what would normally happen.

I ask the same question of Seamus Searson and Tara Lillis. Did the SQA have too strong a voice in developing the ACM, given the clear feelings in 2020? Was it trying to retain influence over the process?

I had not intended to ask a question, but I was confused by the comments about data sharing. I know that those issues have been kicking about for a while, and I understand them. However, if we put those issues to one side, the number of two-year-olds who are registering has fallen since the programme was introduced, so fewer two-year-olds are benefiting now than when the programme started. Does the minister have an explanation for that?

Also, I hear from local ELC providers that they are actively discouraged from engaging directly with families and that they have to wait for the local authority and others to identify them. They cannot go out into their own communities and publicise the offer. Is that correct?

Quite frankly, I find it shocking that the OECD did not have the time to speak to Professor Paterson, who is highly regarded in Scotland by Scottish teachers, parents and many people in academia. That the voice of one of the leading critics of the current curriculum was not included and only his papers read confirms many of my concerns.

The report skirts over issues around knowledge. It pushes points, but it does not question whether the capacities that are at the heart of CFE are what causes the problem. As a result, the report is less than it would have been.

I do not need an answer to that, convener. I am happy to let other members come in.

With respect, Keir Bloomer was not happy with the process either. He said that it was evident that it had been “stage managed by government”. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to reference him as a defence for not having taken time to speak to Professor Paterson.

I was, but I was not really satisfied with what you said. My understanding was that the OECD sent a paper to Scottish Government officials about who would participate in the review, and one of the questions in that paper was about which additional non-ministry academics should be approached. The Scottish Government and the OECD have been unable to tell me who was discussed and why you chose particular individuals. I am confused by that, because there are a number of voices in Scottish education who have fundamental concerns about curriculum for excellence and the principles behind it.

I return to the original line of questioning that you started, convener. I have serious concerns that the report is flawed and has not engaged properly with non-ministry academics. I have written twice to the OECD without ever receiving a reply, and when, after a freedom of information request, I asked the Scottish Government which non-ministry academics were suggested to the OECD, I was told that a planned phone call to discuss additional participants did not take place. I am therefore interested in finding out how the non-ministry academics were suggested and where the view that CFE had been universally embraced in Scotland came from.

I would like you to add local authorities to that list. My local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council, might have a view, given the volume of wind-related planning applications that it receives.