Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Official Report 668KB pdf
Contents
Petitions
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
Welcome back. The next item on our agenda is consideration of public petitions. We will first consider PE1548, which is about national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. It was lodged by Beth Morrison.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in all schools. The petition says that the guidance should support the principles of last resort so that, when it is deemed necessary, restraint should be the minimum required to deal with the agreed risk, for the minimum amount of time, and with appropriate supervision of the child at all times, including during “time out” or seclusion.
The guidance should also support the principles of reducing the use of solitary exclusion and limiting the time that it is used for—for example, by setting a maximum time limit; not using restraints that are cruel, humiliating, painful and unnecessary or that are not in line with trained techniques; and the accountability of teaching and support staff for their actions, which should include recording every incident leading to the use of seclusion or restraint and monitoring of that by the local authority.
The guidance should also include the principles that there will be regular training for staff in how to avoid the use of restraint and that, when restraint is unavoidable, there will be training in the use of appropriate restraint techniques from providers accredited by the British Institute of Learning Disabilities, with no use of restraint by untrained staff.
The petition also calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to appoint a specific agency—either Education Scotland or, possibly, the Care Inspectorate—to monitor the support and care that is given in non-educational areas, including by evaluating the restraint and seclusion of children with special needs in local authority, voluntary sector or private special schools.
Our papers outline the work that was undertaken on the petition by the Public Petitions Committee and the session 5 Education and Skills Committee. In December 2019, the Deputy First Minister and then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirmed that
“the Scottish Government will produce new national guidance that will provide a clear human rights-based policy on physical intervention and seclusion in Scottish schools”.—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 19 December 2019; c 22.]
A working group, whose membership included the petitioner, was established in early 2020 to develop and agree the new guidance. Although progress was delayed by the pandemic, the Deputy First Minister indicated, in correspondence dated 16 February 2021, that the guidance would be finalised later in 2021. As yet, that guidance has not been published.
Do members have any comments on the petition?
I should acknowledge that the petitioner is one of my constituents. I very much commend her doggedness and constructive suggestions, without which we would not have reached this stage.
Clearly, Covid has interrupted progress. It would be appropriate to write to the cabinet secretary, seeking an understanding of where matters rest at the moment.
We could perhaps ask for a timescale in which we can expect to see the guidance that the working group has developed.
This is a really important topic. I agree with Graeme Dey and the convener that, in the first instance, we should write to the cabinet secretary, asking for an update on when we will see that human rights-based policy and guidance. It is important for pupils, parents and teachers.
As there are no other comments, do members agree to write to the cabinet secretary, asking for an update on the anticipated timescale for the guidance that is being developed by the working group?
Members indicated agreement.
Literacy Standards (Schools) (PE1668)
Our next petition is PE1668, on improving literacy standards in schools through research-informed reading instructions. The petition, which was lodged by Anne Glennie, urges the Scottish Government, first, to provide national guidance, support and professional learning for teachers in research-informed reading instruction—specifically, systematic synthetic phonics—and, secondly, to ensure that teacher training institutions train new teachers in research-informed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics.
Our committee papers provide an outline of the action that was taken on the petition during session 5 by the Public Petitions Committee and the Education and Skills Committee. The session 5 Education and Skills Committee was undertaking an inquiry into initial teacher education and the early phase of teaching. Ahead of the formal evidence sessions for its inquiry, the committee agreed to take evidence from the petitioner to allow the broader issues raised by the petition to be explored. It also agreed that the session would include a focus on any issues that could inform the inquiry.
The session, which was set for 18 March 2020, did not take place, as a result of the Covid pandemic, and the committee was unable to restart its inquiry on ITE owing to other work that it undertook on scrutinising the response to the pandemic.
Do members have any comments on the petition?
From an educationalist’s point of view, we need to consider the issue very carefully. Directing methodology and pedagogy is a tricky area. From what I can see, the petition asks us to do that and to go down a certain route. I have taught synthetic phonics for over 30 years, but I have also taught the other methods. At the moment, in initial teacher education, they are trying to use a variety of those approaches. I am not commenting on whether they are doing it well enough.
There are technical flaws to synthetic phonics, because there are issues about pronunciation and how neurodiverse kids come into it. It also does not solve the issue of dyslexia. I wonder whether those issues are all behind that work. Obviously, I was not there during the previous session, but all of those issues have come to me, so, as much as I would love to get stuck into this, I wonder what our role is. Is it our role to direct the way that we teach reading and roll that out? That is what the petition is looking for, and I am not sure that that is our role.
I am not sure that politicians should be getting involved in that.
Yes, I know.
I agree, because mandating local authorities, headteachers and teachers to teach in a specific way is quite concerning. I have neurodiverse children, and having a wider range of options means that we can work with what is best for children as individuals.
I am conscious that we have received some evidence—through the Ken Muir report on initial teacher education and discussions around it—that some forms were put in place almost a generation ago and have been replicated elsewhere, but we have not kept them up to date. I know that we have a full work programme for the next year at least, but, perhaps later in the session, after we have been through the legislative process, the subjects that are dealt with in the petition might be addressed in a future inquiry. That is not on the immediate horizon, but I am sure that it would come up if there was another discussion about initial teacher education. The committee might want to have that discussion at some point, and I certainly think that there would be grounds for doing so.
11:45
With regard to the petitioner’s expectations, it is only fair to say that we are not going to get to this specific aspect of education policy any time soon—not within a year, at least—because of the inquiries that we already have under way. You mentioned the Ken Muir report. On top of that, we have a growing number of legislative requirements, which will also take up our time.
Notwithstanding our obvious interest in initial teacher training, the right thing—based on what Kaukab Stewart has laid out—might be to close the petition.
I will be brief. Michael Marra’s suggestion was about embedding the activity in another body of work or another inquiry that the committee might pursue during the parliamentary session. That is what the previous committee agreed to do, and it found the opportunity to do so. Obviously, however, we do not have that opportunity during this session.
“Never say never” is the point that Mr Marra is making, I suppose, but the convener’s point is about not giving a false expectation that things might happen any time soon. I therefore agree that we should close the petition. However, our knowledge of the wider issues that the petitioner would seek to have raised does not disappear with that closure. If there is another inquiry that we can tack those questions on to, we should do so, by all means. Nevertheless, at this stage, rather than having things drag on without being able to fulfil the petitioner’s expectations, I agree that closure is probably the best thing.
I tend to agree with what you have said. I will bring Michael Marra back in, in a minute. To be fair to the petitioner, we are not likely to get to this in the immediate future. As I said, I cannot see over the brow of the hill, but I do not see us getting into that policy area in the work of the committee in the next year at least. I therefore think that the best thing to do is to be completely on the level and say that we should close the petition but that, should we get to the subject of initial teacher education, we would have an institutional memory of the petition and could revisit it at that time.
I am content with that, convener. It sounds like a reasonable approach. The committee is pretty clear.
Are we content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Getting it Right for Every Child Policy (Human Rights) (PE1692)
The next petition is PE1692, which is on an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. I am not a great fan of all these acronyms; I have to keep reminding myself of what they stand for. The petition, which was lodged by Lesley Scott and Alison Preuss on behalf of Tymes Trust and the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to initiate an independent public inquiry into the impact on human rights of the routine gathering and sharing of citizens’ personal information on which its GIRFEC policy relies.
Our papers say that, in January 2020, the Deputy First Minister and then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills explained that his officials were in the early stages of developing a package of products based on shared principles around how services should handle sensitive personal information, to ensure that children, young people and their parents could be assured that their rights were being respected. At that time, the Deputy First Minister expected to publish those materials at the end of 2020; however, progress was delayed by the pandemic. In February 2021, responding to a request for an update, the Deputy First Minister indicated that the guidance would be finalised later in 2021. As yet, that guidance has not been published.
I ask members for their comments. Although I am not a fan of acronyms, the subject matter of personal data is a critical issue in the minds of many people, including the petitioners.
The Government had a clear direction of travel in its intent to respond. It would be reasonable to write to ask what progress it has made on that. We would understand the delays, but, if it is going to make a response, it would be good to see it.
I see lots of nodding heads. Are we content to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, asking for an update on the timescales, which clearly need to be updated?
Members indicated agreement.
Additional Support Needs (Funding) (PE1747)
The final petition is PE1747, which was lodged by Alison Thomson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish schools—primary, secondary and special.
Our papers outline the action that was taken on the petition by the session 5 Public Petitions Committee and its decision to refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee. In its legacy report, the session 5 education committee explained that it undertook work on additional support for learning following the referral of PE1747, which included, at its 18 November 2020 meeting, taking evidence from Angela Morgan on her additional support for learning review report and, as part of its pre-budget scrutiny, looking at additional support needs. However, the committee stated that, given the time constraints, it was unable to fully consider the petition. Do members have any comments on the petition?
This subject comes up weekly in our committee meetings, and it came up again today in the evidence that we received regarding the attainment challenge. Additional support needs are an underlying issue in the performance of the education system across Scotland and pertain to some of the most vulnerable young people.
Given how often the issue comes up, it would be good if it were firmly on our work programme for the foreseeable future. Given the representations that I receive as a member, I think that it should come to the fore in our work programme, if we can find space for it. I recognise that our work programme is busy and that we would have to find space, but it is a recurring theme that comes up week after week.
All the evidence that we receive shows that it is a challenge for local authorities and families. I am keen, therefore, that we try to find space for it. I recognise that that might not happen in the coming weeks, but let us take suggestions on how we deal with it. I am very keen for us to do something about it.
That is a very clear position. To an extent, the issue is a silver thread that runs through so many other issues that we consider as part of our work programme, so it is not completely out there. As you pointed out, it keeps coming back up in the committee’s work.
I agree with what both of you have said. However, we have been taking evidence about Covid, and it is important to put across the view from inside the profession that additional support needs is a very specific term that covers those who are not yet diagnosed, as well as those who have been diagnosed and who experience difficulties with and barriers to learning. It is true that additional needs have come up time and time again, but the needs that have come up are those of young children suffering because of Covid. Those needs and additional support needs are two different things—we must remember that. Although I do not disagree with what you have said, I want to correct the idea that is in your heads. You must not conflate those two things.
Experts are starting to note that, sometimes, when parents say that they think their child is autistic and they want them assessed, the early years practitioner says that, actually, in their professional opinion, the child is not hitting the markers for that and, instead, they have suffered from a lack of stimulus and need a bit of speech and language therapy. I hope that that gives an example of the difference.
The petition concerns additional support needs as per the tight parameters of the legislation.
This is not a question so much as an observation. I totally get Michael Marra’s point about the representations that we receive as members, although we might disagree about the extent to which responsibility for additional support for learning lies with local authorities as opposed to the Scottish Government through additional funding.
What form would the committee’s work take if we considered the issue? Given our workload, I do not envisage an inquiry into it, so I am not clear how we would take it forward. That is not to say that we should not, but we need at least to have an idea of what form our interest would take before we come to a decision as to what to do.
This is about funding as much as anything else. We have another budget cycle coming almost as soon as we get back from the summer recess, so we could consider the issue in the context of our pre-budget scrutiny. Over the course of that process, it would be a fair issue for the committee to address with witnesses, including the cabinet secretary. We could keep the petition open to take us to that point and then review it. Does that answer your question?
With respect, you suggest that we fundamentally accept that this is an issue of national Government funding, and I am not sure that I entirely agree with that.
As you well know, as a former minister, the Government has the capacity to ring fence funds for certain things that it passes along to local government. The Government can make a party political point if it does that rather deftly, so it is something that the Government could do.
I will come in partly to give the deputy convener reassurance that I am not confused in the picture that I have in mind about the evidence that we have received. Additional support needs issues have come up in the context of Covid and in a variety of other contexts, including the institutional reviews that we are considering and in the evidence about Education Scotland. Those issues came up again in today’s evidence. As the convener has rightly said, it is the silver thread that runs through much of the evidence that we have taken over the past year. Those issues are not particular to Covid, although Covid has had a clear impact on young people with additional support needs.
That brings me to my point. I see the issue in a broader context. We must consider how the funding is allocated, which is part of the question. Has the Morgan review been implemented appropriately, and are we meeting the aspirations that were set out in it? A broader inquiry into that would be appropriate—I hear that all the time and there is a real need for it.
I have no difficulty with picking up from where the previous committee was, because it was going to consider the issue. Its next step was going to be to consider the matter as part of its pre-budget scrutiny. I do not have an issue with that.
That is helpful.
I hope that this is a helpful contribution. I think that we all agree to keep the petition open, but we are in danger of rehearsing what our discussions might be during our work programme chat. However much work on the issue we deem appropriate, we should reflect on how we can best take it forward. Budget scrutiny would seem an obvious hook to hang it on, but we will all want to reflect on that. We are saying that we should not close the petition, so that we can pick up the cudgels again in our work programme discussions.
Absolutely—the cudgels will still be there to be picked up.
There is obviously a great deal of interest in this important topic. I wonder whether one of our private business planning discussions would be the place to fully thrash out where we go with it. I agree with keeping the petition open but, with a full work programme, we want to be sure that we give it the attention that it deserves. We need to consider whether it fits into something else or needs to be separate. I propose that we keep the petition open and consider it the next time that we have a private business planning discussion.
Ruth has summed it up nicely.
Ruth said exactly what I was going to say—thank you for that, Ruth. I have no issue with doing what is proposed, but I am mindful of the impact on our work programme and what we would give up in order to do the petition justice—and it deserves justice.
That is a fair point. Ruth’s summary captures the sentiment of everyone who has spoken.
I do not disagree at all with Ruth—she is bang on the money. The fact that more than 30 per cent of our children have additional support needs should be mentioned in the discussion, because the issue affects so many parents and families.
That is a very good point, which highlights the concerns of the petitioner. That is, of course, why we are having this discussion.
Are we agreed to keep the petition open and to consider the matter further in a future discussion of our work programme?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings the public part of the meeting to an end. I ask members to reconvene on Microsoft Teams in a few minutes. Come to think of it, there is no one on Teams. We will consider our final items in private. I wish those who are watching proceedings a very good afternoon.
12:00 Meeting continued in private until 12:28.