Meeting of the Parliament 25 June 2025
Earlier today, I was reading a speech by Tavish Scott from 2017, in which he made a passionate case for change, but that case was primarily about the inspectorate, not the SQA. The SQA issue came at a much later stage, during the pandemic, with the examination results scandal. At that point, excitement and passion was generated because there had been frustration, almost from the point at which the inspectorate and the new Education Scotland had been created, as there was a feeling that no public body should be marking its own homework.
That is why there was, at that point, a real cry that the functions should be separated, and later on, the Parliament agreed to that by majority vote. However, it took years for the Government to implement that decision, and we have reached the final conclusion of that process today.
During all that time, those staff have been waiting in limbo. Since that point in 2017, my biggest criticism has been that the inspectorate missed the big issue in Scottish education: the decline in the international performance of our education system. It was once one of the best, and then it slipped down the rankings, but the inspectorate missed that completely.
That is why, in a sense, we need a much-strengthened inspectorate that carries heft in the Scottish education system and can challenge without being intimidated by any part of the public sector. I am afraid that, so far, that has not been the case. Likewise, that applies to Education Scotland, which has now been split from the inspectorate. Those bodies need to be given greater support, because we need them to be strong and to challenge public authorities and schools. They need to appoint senior people, whom we currently do not have in place. That needs to change, and it needs to change quickly.
Finally, with regard to the SQA, the alternative certification model that was used during the pandemic stimulated the desire to abolish that body after many years of trying to get it to change. If we are frank, however, the SQA has changed. We can see the culture change that is being led by Shirley Rogers, who is already making a dramatic impact on the body. However, it still requires a plethora of committees, engagement processes, learners’ panels and advisory groups to ensure that the voices of young people, parents and teachers, from across the education system, are built into the SQA.
We now have the charters to ensure that we get the culture right, and we have the important review on accreditation. One of the criticisms that staff have levied at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and at the Government, is that we agree the form before we agree the function. That is why the review is the right thing to do to decide what we will do with quality assurance and the scope of accreditation. Only then can we decide where to put it. I am afraid that the alternative amendments in stages 2 and 3 were trying to discuss the form before the function. We need to get it right this time and to do it in a professional fashion to ensure that it is indeed right.
My final point is on safeguarding and child protection. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has laid out a process for ensuring that the concerns that the General Teaching Council for Scotland and others have expressed about the supervision and oversight of the system—not individual inspections—in relation to those two aspects are properly considered.
The bill is a good step in the right direction. Now, we need to let those bodies get on and develop a strong place in Scottish education so that we start to improve in our performance.