Hansard

It is a great privilege to sit in this very grand room in Dunfermline. I am sitting looking at a plaque to the first provost of Dunfermline, who was provost in 1424. I think that it is worth acknowledging our wonderful surroundings today. First, I thank Angela Constance for getting rid of a bit of gobbledygook. The school pupils here today will be able to understand the bill better, because in amendment 104, which inserts proposed new section 3A into the 2000 act, the cabinet secretary has replaced the phrase “have due regard to the desirability of exercising the powers” with “have due regard to the need to exercise the powers”. It is important that any legislation that we pass is written in a way that people can understand, and I thank the cabinet secretary for that change. Secondly, on the national improvement framework, I note that proposed section 3C of the 2000 act, as inserted by amendment 106, says: “In pursuance of the duty imposed on them by section 3(1), the Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a statement setting out strategic priorities and objectives in relation to school education (the ‘National Improvement Framework’).” The problem is that we will not see the national improvement framework until January. This morning, the cabinet secretary has given us a bit more of an idea of what it is likely to contain, but what will it be based on? What will be reviewed? What is it? What does it look like? The fact is that we do not know. We will know in January, and I look forward to that, but it would have been helpful to have known that information prior to today’s meeting. I missed the debate that the committee had with the cabinet secretary on the framework, and I thank each and every member, including the convener, for the questions that were asked. I thought that I would have found some clarity on the national improvement framework in the discussions that the committee had on 17 November, but what I found instead was the cabinet secretary saying: “It will be obligatory for local authorities to work towards delivering the priorities contained in the ... framework, and the assessment of children’s progress is just such a priority, but that is quite different from anchoring the particular specification of a standardised assessment.” Donna Bell said something slightly different, but, bearing in mind that 27 out of 32 local authorities have some form of testing, I note Iain Gray’s questioning of the cabinet secretary and that in response to your own question, convener, “Is it your expectation that local authorities will stop doing what they are currently doing?” the cabinet secretary said: “Yes, it is.”—Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 November 2015; c 56-7. I am therefore a little bit less than clear about the testing. However, I am clear—and I say this as an MSP for the Highlands and Islands—that children who have lower attainment at school do not always live in what we would know as deprived areas. That is why it is very difficult to count children from poorer backgrounds with regard to widening access in remote and rural areas; the Scottish index of multiple deprivation does not apply in rural areas. In village schools across the Highlands and Islands, pupils from the richest households sit alongside pupils from the poorest. For that reason, I do not want all of the effort on attainment to be focused on areas that are classed as deprived or schools in those areas; instead, I want some focus on some form of assessment to ensure that, regardless of the school a child goes to, their ability to achieve a greater level of attainment will be highlighted, that sort of thing will be picked up and no child will be left behind. We need to ensure that, regardless of background, school, area, geography and whether they are from the islands or the mainland, children are given the help that they need to improve attainment. For that reason, I will not be supporting Liam McArthur’s amendment 106A. I commend Mark Griffin for his amendments. I think that the Labour Party is attempting to make a bit of sense of something that is still fairly nebulous at this stage, but I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s points on whether or not the amendments are necessary. As for my own amendments, I am very grateful to the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland for what are probing amendments that are very relevant to the bill’s content. There are wider issues to be discussed, and I think that it is appropriate for us to do so in the process of scrutinising the bill. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s response to these amendments and would be pleased to hear what other members have to say. Amendment 104E, which addresses financial barriers to access and participation, would place a duty on education authorities and the Scottish ministers to ensure equality of access to, and participation in, education for all children in Scotland. Financial barriers to education can include costs for things such as school uniform; getting to and from school; classroom materials; snacks and meals; information technology equipment; trips and excursions; and clubs and extracurricular activities, among many other things. 11:45 For some children, there is a real risk that the costs that are associated with school are so great that they undermine the right of equal access to a free education as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is for that reason that the Child Poverty Action Group sees that there is a need to measure attainment and reduce inequalities of outcome such as the attainment gap. Education authorities and the Scottish ministers would have a duty to work with schools to report on the extent to which they have reduced inequality of access to, and participation in, education. They should seek to look at poverty-proofing procedures—for example, they should set out how they intend to make school trips affordable and look at the need for families to buy expensive equipment. Steps of that nature are simple and often cost neutral, and they could be taken immediately by education authorities following consultation with parents. Amendment 106B would enable the Scottish ministers to set attainment gap targets in relation to the national improvement framework. Above all, it is thought that establishing targets will help to ensure that a suitable framework is in place to allow progress on reducing the attainment gap to be accurately measured. We began today’s meeting by talking about narrowing the attainment gap, but I notice that the First Minister and the cabinet secretary have spoken about closing the attainment gap, which is very different from where we started. If we are looking at closing the gap, we need to have some sort of markers in place. What we mean by the attainment gap, and how we measure its size, are important points. The existence of a legislative target would help to ensure that efforts to close the attainment gap continue to be prioritised. It will illuminate the destination, thereby helping to ensure that the path that is taken is quicker and more directed. The amendment is deliberately drafted broadly to allow the Scottish ministers time to consult with education authorities and other stakeholders, and to consider in depth what the best and most effective targets are. Amendments 107A, 107B, 107C and 107D would require education authorities and the Scottish ministers to report on the steps that they have taken and those that they plan to take. Those four amendments focus on the steps to meet the targets for closing the attainment gap. Given that more needs to be known about what works in order to improve attainment, those amendments seem to be fairly sensible with regard to meeting the central objective of the legislation, which is to reduce, or to close, the attainment gap. That takes me happily on to amendment 159. I hope that the pupils from the local school who are here today will realise that this is an historic occasion, because a Scottish Conservative amendment is actually likely to be successful. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that. The cabinet secretary Angela Constance, in introducing the national improvement framework, will delete sections 1 to 4 of the bill. In one form or another, those sections are being replaced by the amendments that we have heard about today, except for section 3, which relates to consultation prior to issuing any guidance. If there is one thing that we are all learning during the bill process, given the timing of amendments being lodged, it is that consultation is not only democratic but respectful and courteous. It gives all those working at the chalkface—if I can call it that—and in councils the opportunity to scrutinise what we are doing today. I can only assume that the lack of provision for such consultation was an oversight, and I am delighted that amendment 159 is to be accepted, because I do not think that any of us would want any guidance to be issued without education authorities, parents, voluntary organisations and any other persons that the Scottish Government thinks appropriate being consulted. I ask colleagues for their support on that issue. My next amendments relate to another section of the bill, so I will finish there.