Meeting of the Parliament 24 June 2025
Amendments 18 and 45 seek to reshape the purpose of school inspections in Scotland, in order to ensure that underlying issues in schools are identified and worrying trends are not ignored. I take cognisance of what the cabinet secretary has said about overburdening the inspectorate with reporting, but I believe that I need to take the time—for which I apologise—to make the case for why those issues require to be called out and appear in the bill as areas for inspection.
Amendments 18 and 45 do not create unnecessary bureaucracy or abstraction, but rather root the process in the realities of modern Scottish education. The amendments outline key areas for mandatory assessment that reflect the experience of staff, pupils and parents. Each element is proposed not as a technicality, but as an educational necessity.
We must begin where the crisis is most acute—in school discipline, which is covered in amendment 18 by paragraph (a) of proposed new subsection (1A) of section 30. Every member of this Parliament agrees that there is a discipline issue in Scottish schools. The NASUWT Scotland survey from March 2025 found that 83 per cent of teachers reported more pupils being physically violent or abusive in the past year; eight in 10 had been threatened with a weapon; more than a third—37 per cent—had been assaulted by pupils; and nearly 90 per cent had experienced verbal abuse, from swearing and threats to racist or sexist insults.
The Scottish Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools research in 2023 reported that incidents of violence, aggression and disruption “have risen significantly” in recent years. In fact, 35.8 per cent of Scottish 15-year-olds told programme for international student assessment 2022 researchers that they had witnessed a physical fight at school—that is double the OECD average.
What is particularly alarming is the increased vulnerability of female teachers. Teachers have described being groped, sexually harassed and physically intimidated. The cabinet secretary is fully aware that female teachers feel least safe, yet the response has been to issue vague recommendations without the investment or statutory backing to make a difference.
Given this reality, we must call into question the implementation of discipline policies. Under Scotland’s new national action plan on relationships and behaviour, which was launched in August 2024, every school should have a clear behaviour policy that is followed by all. However, the NASUWT found that one in five teachers could not confirm whether their school even had a behaviour policy and, of those who could, only 6 per cent said that it was always enforced.
Worse still, teachers have raised concerns about overreliance on the restorative behavioural approach, with 69 per cent of Scottish teachers who responded to one survey saying that that approach was the single biggest factor in deteriorating pupil behaviour at their school. Almost two thirds felt that restorative practices, such as mediated conversations after incidents, were ineffective in managing serious discipline. The NASUWT’s general secretary cautioned that teachers
“are being left without the back-up and effective deterrents needed to address poor pupil behaviour.”
Despite that, the SNP Government’s recent guidance, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss in the chamber, is a collection of buzzwords that entirely fails to meet the seriousness of the situation. The guidance lacks clarity, direction and the legislative backbone to deliver safety. Instead of rules, teachers are given laminated lists of bullet points to hand out. Miles Briggs was bang on the money when he said that that SNP-issued guidance is
“a pathetic response to the epidemic of violence in Scottish classrooms”.
He is right. We now know that violence is a big problem in schools and the guidance is not worth the laminated paper it is written on.
The culture of tolerating or hiding violence affects the whole school environment and learning outcomes. It drains teaching time while staff firefight disruptions. Instead of teaching, good teachers leave and pupils’ learning suffers. It is therefore vital that inspectors ask whether school discipline policies are effective and implemented and whether staff are safe. If we cannot guarantee safety, every other aim—equity, attainment and inclusion—is undermined. Amendment 18 would enshrine that focus in the heart of inspections.
Amendment 18’s proposed paragraph (b) is about
“the quality of the learning environment”.
Audit Scotland’s 2021 report “Improving outcomes for young people through school education” made clear the stark disparities between schools in different council areas. I hope that members will all agree that the variation in areas from digital connectivity and support staffing to access to up-to-date sports facilities and safe buildings, is unacceptable. The physical and digital infrastructure of a school directly affects learner outcomes, so inspectors must be empowered to assess the fitness of the learning environment in its totality.
That environment is not only about buildings; it is also about class context and culture. Class size is one key indicator. In primary schools, the average class size grew to 23.3 pupils by 2022 and more than 10 per cent of primary pupils were in classes of more than 30, despite an official policy aim to cap class sizes at 25 for pupils in primary 1 and 30 for primaries 2 and 3. Secondary school classes can be even larger for popular subjects, although official averages are not collected.
All of that matters for inspections because overly large classes can undermine the quality of the learning environment. Noise levels rise, individual support dwindles and teachers struggle to manage diverse learning needs. An internal EIS survey found that 72.8 per cent of secondary school branches and 65.5 per cent of primary teachers identified smaller class sizes as a top priority for improving inclusion and behaviour. Inspectors must therefore observe class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios because their effect on classroom atmosphere provides a vital context for a school’s performance.
The next element of amendment 18 is proposed paragraph (c), which covers
“the support provided to persons with additional support needs, including access to appropriate resources and specialist support”.
Angela Morgan’s 2020 review condemned the implementation of Scotland’s additional support for learning laws as being “fragmented” and “inconsistent” and Audit Scotland backed that up in 2021, saying that far too many learners with ASN, particularly those in mainstream settings, are not receiving the support that they need and that the presumption of mainstreaming, while well intended, has not been matched with adequate training or staffing. Audit Scotland reported a persistent attainment gap and said that pupils with identified ASN achieved significantly lower exam results on average and were less likely than their peers to go to positive destinations—we know how much the Government loves to talk about those—after school.
A fundamental problem identified by the Morgan review in 2020 is that the implementation of ASN support is “fragmented” and “inconsistent”. In practice, that can mean that ASN provision differs wildly by council area or school. A child might flourish with good support in one school, while a similar child elsewhere might struggle without it.
The Morgan review concluded that many aspects of the system, from staff training to resources and co-ordination, need improvement. Those findings were accepted by the Scottish Government, which developed an ASN action plan, but progress has been slow—by late 2024, only 40 of 76 recommended actions had been completed. That context makes it critical that inspections rigorously examine how each school supports ASN learners.
Front-line testimony from teachers and families suggests that there is an on-going ASN support crisis. The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has warned of
“a system not built to meet”
pupils’
“needs”.
Earlier this year, the SSTA president, Stuart Hunter, said:
“ASN staff are overwhelmed, and the system is breaking.”
That leaves class teachers trying to juggle full teaching loads, plus the role of learning support.
We cannot continue to have a policy of placing children with complex needs in classrooms without the means to support them, and then leaving it to teachers to manage the consequences. Inspections must ask whether ASN pupils are being supported in practice, not just in theory.
The next element of the amendment, which is on
“the morale and wellbeing of teachers and staff”—[Interruption.]
I am sorry that I am taking so long to spell this out, but the importance of each of the elements of amendment 18 needs to be illustrated, because the morale and mental health of teachers and school staff are not soft issues—they directly influence teaching quality and pupil experience. When staff are demoralised or burned out, absenteeism rises and continuity suffers, and it becomes harder to retain good teachers, which leads to shortages. Unfortunately, multiple surveys since 2018 indicate worsening stress and wellbeing among Scotland’s teachers.
Even before the pandemic, an EIS survey in 2019 found that only 33 per cent of teachers felt generally satisfied in their job. By 2021, an EIS health and wellbeing survey of more than 16,000 teachers was painting a grim picture: more than 70 per cent of respondents said they felt “stressed” frequently or all the time, and fully 50 per cent rated their wellbeing at work as “poor” or “very poor”.
In 2022-23, Scottish teachers took 383,000 sick days—the highest number in more than a decade—while data compiled by the Improvement Service showed that stress is now the number 1 cause of teacher absence across Scotland. The Improvement Service warned that that trend is expected to worsen in coming years if nothing changes. That highlights the importance of including that element in inspections. Are staff protected? Are they listened to? Are they being treated with professional dignity?
The next element of amendment 18 is on recommendations on
“whether the number of teachers and staff in the establishment can meet the needs of the persons undertaking a qualification in that establishment”.
A 2025 survey by School Leaders Scotland revealed that more than a third of secondary schools had to cut or reduce course offerings due to a lack of teachers. It highlighted that subjects such as business studies, computing, home economics, modern languages, modern studies and physics are “losing a foothold” in timetables, and that in some schools, those courses have been withdrawn entirely for lack of a specialist teacher.
For example, 20 schools reported removing computing from their curriculum; others could offer national 4 and 5 computing only by assigning a non-specialist teacher from another subject. It goes on. These are often practical subjects that are crucial for skills and for certain career paths, and when they vanish, our young people lose opportunities. I would have thought that all of us in the chamber were interested in underpinning equality of opportunity for Scotland’s children and young people.
That applies to core exam subjects such as maths and English. Staffing is strained. SLS found that secondary schools start each day with an average of 2.9 teaching vacancies unfilled, even before accounting for teachers who are off sick.
I could say a lot about vacancy rates, but I will pass over those and summarise as follows. Inspections must ask whether the workforce is meeting the needs of pupils.
I will consider the next two elements of the amendment together. One is
“the type of employment contract held by teachers and staff in the establishment”
and the other is
“the number of teachers in the establishment who—
(i) are completing probationary service, or
(ii) are newly qualified teachers, having completed their probationary service no more than 5 years before the date of the inspection”.
20:30One in six teachers in Scotland is currently employed on a temporary contract. Newly qualified teachers routinely complete probation and are then left scrambling for piecemeal roles. I recently visited a school in the Central Scotland region, where I met a fantastic young teacher, but he was running out of time and told me that he had no prospect of a permanent position. He had worked hard to get there—he had worked in Tesco and McDonald’s as he went through his teaching qualification—but now he is faced with the prospect of not having a permanent position and having to return to the piecemeal work that he had been doing before.
How do we feel about that? I know how I feel about it, because I looked into his face—this was a committed professional and someone who has a vocation in teaching. You could see it in the children in the class; they loved him, they loved his teaching, and he was interesting. He was exactly the sort of teacher that I would want my kids and grandkids to have. Yet, here he was, facing the prospect of a very uncertain future.
We should be looking at the situation of newly qualified teachers closely. That churn erodes continuity for learners, it disincentivises careers in teaching and it puts probationers in deeply vulnerable situations. That uncertainty is corrosive for the profession and the pupils. Inspections must include an assessment of staffing stability, in respect of both numbers and contract quality.
Why does that matter? First, a high reliance on temporary staff can disrupt continuity for pupils. A school with many temporary teachers might experience mid-year staffing changes or temps rotating year to year. As the EIS has argued, schools cannot maintain consistently high-quality learning if a significant chunk of the staff are effectively visiting teachers with no job security.
Secondly, I am also mindful of the teachers themselves. Being on a string of temporary contracts causes stress and lowers morale, which ultimately pushes some very talented people to leave the profession that they chose and love. For instance, after finishing the teacher induction scheme, only 12.8 per cent of new primary teachers in 2023-24 obtained a permanent post, down from 57.6 per cent six years earlier.
Amendment 18 would require inspectors to consider what proportion of a school’s teachers are permanent versus temporary or probationers. The rationale is that a school that relies too heavily on temporary staff might signal deeper problems in workforce planning or management culture.
The question that we need to ask ourselves is, when we see 30 per cent, as is the case—