Welcome everyone to the second meeting of the Education and Skills Committee. Can I please remind everyone to present to turn off the mobile phones as they can interfere with the sound system? Agenda item one is the declaration of interest. Can I ask the members who are not present for the first committee meeting to declare any interests that they have that are relevant to the work of the committee, and I invite Liz Smith. Yes, can I declare that I am a member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, and that I am a member of the Board of Governors of two schools, George Watson's College and St Mary's School in Melrose? No relevant interests can be none other than being a parent of children at various stages through education, which makes me very relevant. Who could argue with that? Thank you very much. Two, the next item of business is to consider taking item four in private. Are we agreed? Thank you. Agenda item three is the Scottish Government's priorities. I welcome to the committee, John Swinney, who is attending in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. I also welcome Paul Johnson, director general for learning and justice, and Dr Bill Maxwell, chief executive of Education Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for the letter of 22 June, which members have with the papers. I understand that the cabinet secretary would like to make an opening statement. Yes, thank you very much, convener, and I welcome the opportunity to meet with the committee and to discuss issues relevant to my portfolio and look forward to doing that over the course of this parliamentary term. As the First Minister has made clear, education is the defining mission of this Government. There can be no greater responsibility than working to improve the life chances of our children. The Government's commitment to education underpins our three top priorities of delivering sustainable economic growth, public sector reform and addressing the inequality that exists within our society. The primary challenge that we are faced with in our education system is the closing of the attainment gap, the gap between the attainment of young people from the most and the least disadvantaged areas. I am determined to ensure that every child has the same opportunity to succeed in Scotland. My priorities will range across three particular areas. First, to ensure that our children and young people get the best start in life, I will focus on transforming early learning and childcare with a doubling of provision, the deployment of flexibility to help parents, particularly mullers to return to work, and an insistence of educational input to close the attainment gap before it begins to have a profound impact. Secondly, by empowering teachers, parents and communities reducing workload, ensuring that funding reaches schools to meet the needs of local areas and to focus on what works in the process of strengthening our school system. We will be relentless in our efforts to close the attainment gap and raise standards for all, and that underpins the approach of the pursuit of equity and excellence for all within our society. Thirdly, by widening opportunities to access higher, further and vocational education, the Government will work to ensure that every child has the same chance to progress through breaking down the barriers that prevent young people from deprived backgrounds from progressing to the same levels as their more affluent peers reach. Yesterday, I announced the delivery plan to Parliament, which sets out a range of tangible steps to make significant progress in closing the attainment gap in tackling the issue of workload within the education system and in undertaking the reform measures that the Government has set out. There is a range of strong performance already in our education system. We have seen that assessed and validated by the OECD in their report on Scottish education. We can also see from the statistical analysis improvements in the attainment and performance of young people. The most recent statistics in relation to the detail and positive destinations indicated that more than six in 10 young people had achieved a qualification at a higher level or above, reflecting the hard work commitment and dedication of young people, schools, teachers and those who supported them through school. Those are the priorities that the Government will focus on and will take them forward to ensure that they are addressed as part of the work that the Government takes forward to deliver our priorities on education. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Can I just ask everybody to make sure that their phones are off, please? Before we start on, we have a number of groups of questions that I would like to ask. I would like to start off by asking a couple of questions based around last Thursday's European referendum result. Since the vote on Thursday, universities across Scotland have identified concerns in terms of EU research funding and the mobility of staff and students. Has the Scottish Government had time to quantify the effects of Brexit on higher education institutions in Scotland, and how will the Scottish Government ensure that sectors' interests are promoted during Brexit negotiations? That question involves us considering a significant amount of uncertainty about what is going to emerge as a final outcome. Therefore, the importance is that we concentrate on reinforcing the messages about stability within the system. If I take, for example, the issue of undergraduate admission to universities, and there will be students from EU countries that will be proposing or planning to come to Scotland just in a few months' time. We are working with University Scotland and the universities are doing a significant amount of this work themselves, but the Government is working with them to reinforce this. To issue a message that absolutely nothing will change for the young people who are proposing to come to Scottish universities in autumn. It is important that we issue messages of stability and continuity, because they reflect the reality. There will be no impact on the individuals who take those decisions. In relation to the longer term, the question that you raised about research funding is a very important point, because there will be transnational projects in which academics from Scotland are involved in participating. They will have tremendous expertise, and they will have European counterparts who will be anxious to have their expertise built into those transnational projects. It is an important point that we as a Government need to reinforce as part of our input into the discussions that the First Minister, for example, has taken forward in Brussels today, or that she will input into the discussions with the United Kingdom Government, along with other devolved Administrations, to make sure that the very important perspectives of the higher education sector, both in relation to the recruitment of students and in the participation in transnational research programmes, are adequately and fully borne in mind in the design of what relationships exist for the United Kingdom with the European Union as a consequence of the referendum result. Can I ask that if there are any material changes that the committee has made aware of? I will obviously advise and tend to advise the committee of all of the developments that are relevant across the portfolio on an on-going basis. I will aim to do that as assiduously as I possibly can do. Obviously, I recognise the significance of this particular issue, and I was with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh last night. We discussed this particular issue. It is a very significant issue for the University of Edinburgh, as it is for all of our universities, and we will be involved in very active dialogue with the university community around this point. I have another question on skills. What level of EU funding do skills programmes in Scotland receive, and how will the challenge of developing an agile and skilled workforce be affected by that? The main channel for skills funding from the European Union is essentially taking forward through measures around the European programmes, European social fund programmes. We always say that there is a wide application of those within the sector with a range of different providers involved. I do not have a specific quantification of that in front of me today, convener, but I am certainly happy to write to the committee with a quantification of the current position in that respect. The answer that I gave you to your first question reflects the fact that we are not absolutely clear as to what shape the arrangements will take on an on-going basis. It will be important that we reflect that in the analysis that we undertake in due course. We will move on to the other themes and other groups. In an answer that you gave me on 24 May, when I asked about what criteria you will use to measure whether attainment has actually improved, you gave me an interesting answer when you said that you will gather and analyse a range of data and evidence. Could I just tease this out a little bit about how you will determine whether or not improvement is being made in attainment? That is very much about the definition of the gap to which we all refer very regularly. Can you set out your views on that? What is the gap in terms of its definition and how will you measure whether there has been improvement? I think that it is important first of all to say that the gap in attainment is something that the Government wants to assess and address at various stages in the educational journey of a young person. If I put that into some context, I was asking on a radio interview a couple of weeks ago on the issue of widening access to higher education, was that the gap that I was worried about? My answer was that if we left it to that point, we were missing a massive opportunity to remedy the issues that might confront young people. The gap that exists must be assessed at various stages in the educational journey of young people. For example, the vocabulary gap between children entering primary one can be really quite significant. It can be up to, at once, assessed to be as much as 13 months. That is a gap if we do not endeavour to close that at the age of five when young people enter primary education, then we will be essentially setting that young person on a journey, which will be ever more difficult to close that gap. I do not view the attainment gap as one moment in time. I view that as a gap that has to be assessed at various stages in the life of a young person. In relation to the data point, we will be publishing a report consistent with the national improvement framework, which will be drawing together the available data that we have just now. However, I think that Liz Smith is conversant with all of the detail to know that we do not believe that data to be sufficiently clear and firm for us to be able, at this stage, to be definitive about what we will do. We will gather the information to the best of our ability to define what we consider the gaps to be, but we do not at this stage believe that data is available to enable us to do that conclusively. That is why we believe that we have to move to the position of having standardised assessment to then inform teacher judgment about the performance of young people. The report that we produce in the autumn will essentially be the best utilisation of the available data that we have just now in advance of the information emerging from the use of standardised assessment. Can you just follow up on that? We were told at a previous committee in the last session of Parliament by ADES that they felt largely that the data was available, but perhaps it was not presented in a way that was easy enough to interpret and that parents could readily understand. Is the Scottish Government looking for more data, or is it looking to have a better interpretation of the data that already exists? The first point is that I would not share the view that you have heard from ADES about the quality of the data. For example, we do not have comparable data authority by authority, so we have data within authorities, yes, and in most authorities, is that data comparable? I do not consider it to be directly comparable, which is why I answered the first question that Llywydd asked me in the way that I did, that we will be using our best endeavours to use the data that is currently available to provide that comparative picture, but we do not believe it is sufficiently authoritative to enable us to do that, which is why we need to move to standardised assessment. Can I just finish my question? One additional point to that, which is about—this is relevant because of the signal that might be interpreted from Hermans in this—I do not want to create a further cottage industry of data. Where there is data being collected but it is not comparable, I want to replace that data with comparable data. This is not my attempt to create another cottage industry of bureaucracy and data, it is my attempt to try to get the data that will actually enable us to undertake the type of analysis that will first of all assess the scale of the gap and then measure the effectiveness of the interventions that are deployed to try to close that gap over time. Can I just finish on the point? If there are several measures that you have identified at different stages in the child's progression, at the end of four years where you have to make a judgment as to whether attainment has improved or not, will there be any key indicators that you are looking for to say that Scotland is beginning to narrow the gap? Essentially, the journey will be assessed by the performance of young people in reaching the levels identified within curriculum for excellence. That will be the measure, but at each of those levels, we will have, at year one, a size of a gap identified, at year two, we will be able to revisit that situation to determine what has been the performance. It will not be a case of just leaving it all for a four-year period where we are looking at that data on a regular basis to determine what is the effect of the measures that we are taking to try to close the attainment gap on an on-going basis. Cabinet Secretary, on the data that Liz Smith alluded to and her question, I am also interested specifically in what type of data we are talking about at the moment. I appreciate that you might not be able to quantify that at this stage. Secondly, will teaching staff be trained in terms of how to interpret that data so that they can then use it to affect improvements in terms of learning and teaching and therefore allowing them to contribute to closing the attainment gap? Yes, that will be the case. The ultimate product of the information that fuels the national improvement framework is that it relies on teacher judgment being informed by standardised assessment. Ultimately, it will be teacher judgment that is the measure of performance, but it will be informed by standardised assessments. Of course, it will be essential that the teaching profession is adequately equipped and supported to handle that particular task and to make sure that we have a comparative presentation of the information and a comparative understanding of the information. We are also using measures such as the national improvement hub to share good practice within the teaching profession to enable teachers to identify where there is a gap in attainment that teachers are able to access the necessary resources to enable them to try to address those issues and to improve performance. I will ask a supplementary question. On 26 May, you stated that you had met the chief examiner of Scotland following on from the report on the working equipment assessment, where she had stated that reduction in the further burden from assessment and teaching would not be possible without compromising quality and standards. I recognise that there is a real tension between collecting the data and also the will to reduce teacher workload. I just want to ask whether there has been any sort of development in your assessment and is this represent a change in your assessment of that and what is your response to that? Those are two different topics in my view of the general issue around standardised assessment and the attainment gap. On the specific point that Mr Johnson asked me about the workload and the senior phase of education, which was the subject of my discussions with the chief examiner and as a matter of interest to the committee, my second meeting with the chief examiner is this afternoon to assess progress. The point that I accepted in the comments to which Mr Johnson refers is the argument that was essentially marshaled for me by the assessment and qualifications working group that, in 2016-17, if there was to be a change to the unit assessments, the view of the chief examiner, and this was accepted by the assessment and qualifications group, would it be difficult on that model to certificate qualifications? I judged on that basis and that would be a risk that I could not contemplate. Does that mean that that is the case for all time? No, it does not, because I think that there are measures that can be taken to reduce the assessment workload. Not just on teachers, I have to say that the assessment burden on young people into the bargain, which is a matter of some concern to me as well. For 2016-17, that would be my view, but it is not my view for all time. You spoke at the beginning about the improvements in attainment in general terms, which is both a credit to the children, their families and to school staff. Have you assessed or have you looked at the attainment improvements within the most deprived communities? As a far example in health, we know that the health of the nation has improved, but it has remained stubbornly problematic for particular groups. It seems to me that the danger with having data describes a picture and then says what teachers need to do for individual young people. Does it mean that it gives you the information to target resources and policy developments to address the inequalities in the system? If there are patterns, it is not just about individual child's ability to progress, but there are barriers to particular groups of young people, for example, children with disabilities or who have special needs. Are they progressing or are the attainment levels different? I am just interested if you have looked at that. The answer to the question is yes. It is important—I suppose that it also follows on from my answer to Liz Smith's question—that it is very important that we look not just at the age stage of attainment but at the detail within age stages based on socioeconomic background and other factors such as the issues of disability or additional support needs. Ultimately, if I take a step back from all of this to answer Johann Lamont's question, what is driving this agenda must be the fulfilment of the Government's commitment to get it right for every child? If that is genuinely what is the driver of educational policy, which for me is the case, then we have to make sure that we fulfil that in terms of the achievements that are made for young people. Over different stages, the data will be available which can allow us to examine, for example, what level of qualifications are achieved by individuals given their socioeconomic background so that it will tell us a picture of what is the achievement that emerges at the later stages of the educational journey. However, the more general points that I expressed to Liz Smith about identifying what is the pattern of the attainment gap in the earlier stages of education, it is less clear for us to see at this stage. We can see it at the later stages in terms of qualifications achieved as a measure of the closing of the gap, but we need to see that more deeply across the educational journey. With respect to a slightly different point, when we say that attainment in general terms has improved and that there are more qualifications, has that level of improvement been the same across groups or is it different? That would then tell you that there is simply improving the lot of everyone does not necessarily mean that you close the gap. I think that, particularly importantly, is that, when we will talk about this later on about standardised testing and so on, there is an important discussion to be had about whether children coming from the same general backgrounds achieved differently in different schools. We saw that in Glasgow and there were amazing interventions made to make sure that individual schools—it was not about individual schools—were a general drive. I think that that is part of it. However, if there is something else there, I do not think that data and assessing individual tests really deals with that because it is not about whether the teacher understands properly what level that child has reached. It is something quite different than putting education in in a broader context. I wonder whether there are figures that look at what is the same pattern as in health inequalities, where overall health has improved but health inequalities remain stubbornly problematic for us. Essentially, I agree with John Lamont's analysis. I am trying to bring that to this area of policy because I think that what John Lamont has said illustrates the nature of the challenge that we have to address and overcome. In terms of some data on this, there has been the gap between our 20 per cent most and least deprived pupils achieving at least SQF level 5 has reduced from 36.8 percentage points in 2007-08 to 20.9 percentage points. Directly on the point that John Lamont has raised, there has been an improvement over time. That is one illustration of the gap. Another illustration of the gap is that school leavers from our 10 per cent least deprived communities are around twice as likely as those from the 10 most deprived communities to achieve at least one qualification at higher or above. That is a significant improvement on the position in 2007-08 when they were four times likely to do so. Again, at a higher level, the gap has narrowed. There is improvement there. If I could express it this way, it will not be acceptable for me just to improve attainment in general in Scotland because that may well just entrench the gap that already exists. We have to improve attainment and narrow the gap at the same time, which is why the strapline of what I talked about yesterday was excellence and equity. Excellence is about improving attainment in general. Equity is about closing the gap. I want to continually bring the system back to remembering those are the dual challenges that lie at the heart of the agenda. It is a follow-up from a question that I asked in the chamber yesterday, and I appreciated your response. It is a supplementary to John Lamont, and it relates to the specific group of looked-after and accommodated young people. What are the cabinet secretary's plans for closing the attainment gap there, and, in relation to working with the various volunteer agencies that support those groups of people, such as Who Care Scotland, Bernardo's, etc.? There is a general point here. Although a lot of the conversation is about education, many of the measures to address the challenges that Mr MacGregor has talked about will come from a much wider set of interventions that are made. Yes, schools and teaching professions have a lot to contribute here, but so also do the institutional structures of the rest of society, so do the youth organisations. In one of the early discussions that I had in the first day, I was appointed as the education secretary, was with a collection of organisations from the youth work sector, and one of the participants in that discussion was also a high school head teacher, who was there to illustrate to me just the ways in which the school was acting, I suppose, as a host for a range of different services in the youth work environment, which enable young people to get a wider intervention and support their needs. Of course, that is particularly relevant in relation to looking after children to ensure that we have a very broad approach to trying to resolve some of the challenges that they will face. I acknowledge the need for multidisciplinary work to make sure that the needs of young people are properly addressed. Is there anything of the £100 million that is intended to go to head teachers? Would there be a specific remit for head teachers with this group of young people, or is that more just within the general context of the policy? Ultimately, that point would be for head teachers to determine what was appropriate in their circumstances. When we had the education summit, a number of members of the committee attended a couple of weeks ago. It was in Craig Royston High School in Edinburgh, and it was a fantastic experience to understand how that school was essentially taking the concept of the school acting as the host is very much in my mind, that the school, yes, it was providing education to young people, but it was also providing a reference point, an anchor point, a connection point. The school was making connections with employers, with youth agencies, and, yes, they were delivering a curriculum as well, but they were looking at a much broader range of how they could improve outcomes for young people in an area of significant economic and social challenge within the city. That is the model that, increasingly, Scottish education is moving towards, and it is welcome. Obviously, the resources that will go directly to head teachers will enable head teachers to make judgments about what is appropriate for the young people in their schools. Can I go back to Liz Smith's correct question right at the start, which is that your Government has obviously been in power for nine years, so when I read this last night, the delivery plan, I expected there to be a definition of closing the gap, of what the gap is, and it is not. Cabinet Secretary, this morning, you have set out a couple of examples of that, including to John Lamont and John Lamont's previous questions, but how are we able to judge whether we are closing the gap, if it is not clearly defined in your delivery plan, right in the first paragraph? Because the data does not exist to enable me to do that today, and that is the issue, that is why standardised assessment is required, so that we can have comparable data that gives us a starting point, and then I appreciate that data does not exist today. We can debate the points and wherefores of why it is not there, but it is not there. But we are going to put it there, and that will enable us to have the assessment framework that enables us to judge and enables others to judge the effectiveness of the Government and its partners in closing the attainment gap. I readily acknowledge that the information does not exist at this moment, but the Government is putting it in place and what we will do with the national report that we published on the national improvement framework is our best effort at creating a starting point in the absence of that comprehensive data. Thank you. Does that mean standardised testing results from P1, P4, P7 and S3, as you were describing in the chamber yesterday? Yes. And when will those first be available? In page 20 of your delivery plan, it says that we will publish performance information on a school-by-school basis, but it does not say by when. That data, we have put the proposition on standardised assessment out to tender on 20 June. The responses to the invitation to tender are due by 21 July, and we would expect to see the first material to be available during the school year 2017-18. How does that impact on your point in the performance information that is going to be available as to when school-by-school basis analysis will be available, which is obviously in the delivery plan, that will be the first it will be available? I would also want to say to the committee that we will be producing information in the form of a report on the national improvement framework, which will be gathering as much data as we possibly can do, based on the existing information, to try to inform the debate so that we are not waiting until 2017-18 before we try to focus the efforts that are required. I appreciate that. Would you be able to write to the committee just saying what you would expect the gap, how I would best describe it, how we best judge the gap? Is it a test of P1, P3, P7 and S3, but it is also the point that you made earlier on to Joanne Lamont about national qualifications, which are by definition easier to assess because we have those figures now? We do have those figures, and I am certainly very happy to put together some information for the committee. I suspect that quite a bit of it is probably contained within what we have already said on the national improvement framework, but I will look at it. I think that it is important to absolutely define what we are talking about, otherwise I don't know how any of us will understand what is going on. You also said to Liz Smith that there would be no comparable data or the sum comparable data but not 32 local authorities, why comparable data. How are you not going to make sure that there is going to be a greater requirement on teachers to produce more data here? We will be essentially replacing measurement activity that teachers are also undertaking in relation to the point on national standardised assessment. In the rest of the delivery plan yesterday, I set out a whole variety of different measures to reduce teacher workload by what I hope to be a significant amount. I have been stunned. It is the only word that I can describe by the level of bureaucracy, assessment and just transactional activity that is required by teachers right across the system. I have been spending a lot of time getting my head round that and understanding it. That is why the delivery plan is so heavy on the measures that I am requiring of the SQA of Education Scotland, why I am putting Her Majesty's inspectors into the education authorities in August for a two-week period. Every inspector in the country is going into local authorities in August to identify which parts of reducing the workload and reducing the bureaucracy working group conclusions have not been implemented and then I will pursue those to get them implemented because they were supposed to be implemented and they are clearly not. The inspectors are going in to do that work. There is a whole programme of different interventions to reduce that bureaucracy so that we can do what I said in Parliament yesterday. She is liberating teachers to teach. You would expect, and you would probably appreciate as a parent as much as we all would, that if the focus of government becomes those standardised testings in P1, P4, P7 and S3, teachers quite understandably are going to be completely focused on teaching to those tests. It is just the same as a health target, it is just the same as other targets that we have as government and as parliaments, which we are terribly good at laying on professional people. You know as a parent as well as I do, John, that that is the reality of it. If that becomes the government's focus, that is where teachers are going to concentrate. The crucial point here is that the national standardised assessment is informing teacher judgment. Ultimately, teacher judgment is what will be collected. That is consistent with the principles of broad general education so that we can ensure that young people are able to experience that broad general education and to be assessed on the basis of teacher judgment informed by standardised assessments of exactly the performance that is being achieved. I think that it is important that the issues that John Lamont raised with me about the finer detail of that are different ages, different backgrounds and the extent to which that is clear. That will be very much at the heart of the approach that we take. First of all, can I just start by saying that the focus that this plan delivers is useful. The title sums up the twin priorities that deliver excellence and equity, raising attainment in general, but also making sure that attainment is fairly distributed across society and is clearly a very good aim. We have talked a lot about measuring attainment this morning, and I think that is right. You need to be able to understand the size and nature of that gap, but in order to close it, you need to be able to take action, and that requires resource. In broad terms, we welcome the attainment fund, but I would like to ask the cabinet secretary just in terms of understanding that resource will be from the changes in council tax. Obviously, there will be a requirement for redistribution between local authority areas. Can I just ask the cabinet secretary how he envisages that taking forward and what steps have been taken towards putting a mechanism in place to allow those redistributions between local authority areas? That work is essentially under preparation and will be taken forward as part of the wider dialogue that the Government puts in place. We intend that to take effect from 2017-18, so we have an amount of preparatory time to enable us to reach that point. The way in which we intend to deliver this funding will be essentially driven by the need to identify where there is a need within particular schools, so it will be directed towards tackling the circumstances that arise out of the existence and persistence of deprivation. The measure that we are using is entitled to free school meals, and that will enable us to guide and direct as effective as we can the resources that have to be deployed. Forgive me. The second part of your answer is interesting. I would like to ask you some more, but given the timescale, you must have in mind at least the outline principles of how that mechanism for redistribution of those funds will take place. Obviously, there is a real concern about fiscal autonomy of local government. At the moment, the fund will be raised through council tax. In order to redistribute that from central government, there must be some clawback mechanism. Are you proposing that there will be withholding of central government grants? What is not outlined in principle is that mechanism for redistributing additional revenue from council tax. That will be the subject of discussion with local authorities. I have set out in the delivery plan the approach that we will take in that respect. I have had discussions already with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the principles of the Government's approach based on the manifesto that we fought the election on. I will continue those discussions and that is what is set out in the delivery plan. Obviously, that will inform the decisions that we arrive at in relation to 2017-18. For the benefit of the committee, could you maybe outline those principles? The principles are set out in the document that the allocation will be based on the number of children in primary school and S1 to 3 in secondary school who meet the eligibility criteria for free school meals. That is the principle of the Government of the Age. My question is not about how it is allocated, but how it is raised and redistributed. Obviously, there is going to be a requirement to redistribute between local authority areas because the attainment gap is not evenly distributed between local authority areas. I would like to ask how that is going to be done. My answer to that question is that that will be done as a consequence of discussions that I have with local government on that question. That is work that will take place over the summer. I will follow up on that point about how it will be allocated. There is a direct implication in terms of your previous set of answers in terms of the standardised testing and the way in which that data will be used. In your previous answer, you were saying that that data is to be used by teachers. If the allocation of the funding is going to be based on the standardised testing, clearly that data is not going to reside or remain within schools. It will be collected and used for the basis of that assessment of the allocation of the funding by central government. To Tavish Scott's point, surely there is that implication. Surely there is a real risk that teachers are essentially teaching to the test rather than necessarily to broader outcomes, because there is a financial consequence? I do not really follow the logic of the question that Mr Johnson has raised with me. I have said that the distribution of £100 million will be determined by the numbers of children in primary school and the next one to three who meet the eligibility criteria for free school meals. That will be the driver of the distribution of the resources. The information that is gathered on standardised assessment then informs teacher judgment will give us a very clear sense of where the gaps in attainment actually are. I have been very clear about this in all that I have said. The purpose of all of this is not to point fingers at people. The point of this is to improve and to deliver the attainment that young people are entitled to have a chance to achieve. The collection of the information is designed to identify where we need to intervene, what methods need to be taken forward to try to help and to improve attainment. That is the purpose of the reform. That is why I do not share the concern that Mr Scott has raised, because I do not meet anybody in Scottish education that is interested in anything other than improving performance and attainment of young people. For a clarification, you mentioned that free school meals would be the indicator. In primaries 1 to 3, everybody has a free school meal. There is an eligibility criteria that determines whether there is an eligibility criteria. Regardless of the fact that people get free school meals, there is an eligibility criteria for free school meals. It is only those that are eligible in the old sense. I think that it is about identifying in a school if free school meals did not exist, if the blanket availability did not exist, how many children would be eligible for free school meals will then drive what resources go into that particular school out of the £100 million. Just on Diana Johnson's question, but if you plan, as you do and as reported in the Herald today, to move the legal responsibility for education from local authorities to schools, then Diana Johnson's question is correct, because teachers will therefore face the direct legal responsibility, depending on how that is all crafted, the direct legal responsibility for the very attainment gap measures that you are putting in place for S1, S3, S3, S1, S3, S5 and so on. If I read the document, let me just get my reference point absolutely correctly, the issue is not about transferring the legal responsibilities for education from local authorities to schools, it is about bringing schools into the legal responsibility. So it is about ensuring that both local authorities and schools carry the legal responsibility in relation to education, and that is for completeness to ensure that there is the necessary statutory focus on ensuring that we are all focused on this particular objective. I do not understand that, but it would be fair to say that schools will now or in the future, at some point later this year, have a legal responsibility for the education of children that they do not currently have. They will have that once Parliament has agreed to the education bill. Absolutely, sure, sure. That can be have Ross in, please. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Falling on from Fulton MacGregor's point about looking at specific groups of young people, I would like to look at young people with additional support needs for a moment. I was wondering if you could build on what you spoke about yesterday to address the attainment gap specifically for young people with additional support needs. I would like to ask specifically about the provision of dedicated staff capacity. Fundamentally, that is an issue for individual local authorities in relation to the deployment of staff within the education service. There will be examples around the country, and I am receiving correspondence in different parts of the country where some of the provision is changing and being reduced. Members of the public are understandably concerned about that, and I acknowledge that. Fundamentally, those decisions rest with local authorities to make judgments on those points. What the Government's approach is designed to do, and this is an approach that is very much supported by local authorities, is to pursue an agenda where we put in place the mechanisms and the support that is appropriate to each individual person, which was the substance of my answer to Mr Greer in Parliament yesterday. It is very important that we work to ensure that young people have the resources that are appropriate to their needs. Obviously, there are certain aspects of statute that clearly require that, once a provision has been made in relation to the additional support for learning legislation, which essentially structures the entitlement that a young person would have if they had additional support needs, and that they have to be fulfilled and deployed as appropriately within the education system. The best that I can do in answering Mr Greer's question is to say that the policy framework that we operate within of getting it right for every child means that those with additional support needs should have those needs reflected in the design of support that is made available for them. Thank you very much. We will move on to John Greer's question. Thank you very much. Just to go back a moment on this question of responsibilities being devolved to schools and education effectively being distanced from local authorities, are you saying that schools do not have this extra responsibility with resources coming from an increase in council tax, not an increase in resources from the Scottish Government? Obviously, we have a specific commitment to additional resources that will come from the changes that the Government proposes to make in the council tax, which were part of our election manifesto. There will be wider decisions to be taken as part of the spending review about the allocation of resources to right across the board in public services in Scotland. Obviously, the Government will make its decisions in that respect as part of the budget process. It would be fair to say that your specific commitment on closing the attainment gap is to be resourced through a mechanism by raising more council tax from within local authorities rather than saying that this is a priority that will then be reflected in the Scottish budget. If it is a priority, I would have thought that it would be the centre of your budget, not some, frankly, what feels like a very odd mechanism to raise funding for something, but not only are you saying that it is core business, but it is to be funded by local government at the very point at which local government is to have less influence over what is happening in education at a local level. Let me just read what the document says yesterday. On page 11 it says, currently, legal responsibilities for delivering education and raising standards in our schools sit largely with education authorities, not with the schools and teachers that teach our children and young people every day. We will address this imbalance by extending to individual schools responsibilities that currently sit with local authorities, so it does not say, taken away from local authorities and giving to schools, it says extending. It is bringing schools into the legislative responsibility for delivering education. You are not proposing to take education out of local authority responsibility? The paragraph is very clear that it is about extending the legal responsibility to schools, not about removing it from local authorities. The second point is in relation to financial provision, and of course the issues around attainment will feature in the Government's budget, but we set out in our manifesto a very specific mechanism by which we would raise additional resources to invest in attainment within schools, and that was by the changes that we proposed to make to the council tax, and that is what we are fulfilling as part of the delivery plan. I accept your manifesto, but I think that it is still reasonable that we can also test it as an effective mechanism for funding our schools. I think that we can still be transparent to that. I suppose that, more specifically, the question that was interesting in reading your opening statement that you provided to the committee was, I suppose, at one level surprised me, was the emphasis on teachers within education now as an ex-school teacher myself. I understand their role and their importance, but if you are going to be talking about the attainment gap, do you recognise that it is a broader school community that will support some young people?  There are other young people that that is more difficult. I wonder what assessment you have made of the level of support within schools, whether it is behaviour support, education at new learning support, admin support, home links teachers, the kinds of provision that support young people to come into school when there is not necessarily somebody pushing them towards school. Do you recognise the importance of that support community in closing the attainment gap? I completely accept that point and I have seen some very good examples where schools individually are deciding and this is why the whole issue of empowerment of schools and resources direct to schools is important, because ultimately these decisions will be taken. I have been to some schools where decisions have been taken that for some young people when they arrive the most important thing they do when they come in the building is to get the toaster on. Teachers are teachers of school community, members of staff, admin staff, home link workers are all doing these sort of things because they recognise the impediment to learning is maybe this child is hungry. I have seen other examples where some very inventive work has been undertaken about procurement of school uniforms so that young people who just can't afford it or don't turn up with it are being equipped so that they are just on a par with all the other children schools. Fundamentally that is about the school community being empowered to meet the needs of those children in that locality, which is why we are putting the emphasis on schools. I recognise that I have seen some very interesting work about the degree to which people from other disciplines, for example speech and language therapy, are integral to addressing some of the vocabulary gap that exists for children when they present at P1. Some of the models that have been developed of how speech and language therapists are working alongside teachers are very inventive and successful in closing that gap. My point is that I would make good works in places that are fantastic and I have seen them in both as an elected member and as a teacher, but the point is that when budgets are being decided there is anecdotal evidence at least that what we are seeing in our schools is stripping out of those supports because they have to meet the statutory responsibilities core business that you focus on on teachers. When you do that you lose, for example, the attendance officer who is monitoring attendance, which is very often an early signal of a problem of a child falling out of the system. Would you be willing at least to commit to looking at that question? It is particularly important and it would be raised by families of young people with additional support needs who are saying the personal support, the classroom assistant, and these are the people who are disappearing out of the school with a particular impact on children who have additional support needs. What I would like you to commit to yourself to doing is at least looking at that because whether there are pressure on budgets, these are the things that will disappear and there will be a disproportionate effect on particular young people. If we do not have that conversation about what is happening in the resources to our schools, we are compounding a problem for a lot of our young people. I am certainly very happy to look at that question and very happy to discuss it with the committee on an on-going basis. I am interested in some of the models for solutions that Danard I-Testing diluting at least the role of local authorities in school education. I wonder if you have looked at good practice in local authorities in Scotland. When I was fortunate to work in Strathclyde many years ago, there was a very radical approach taken. I wonder if you have looked at what is happening currently within our local authorities to address those questions. I have not completed that exercise. In a sense, the work that the delivery plan sets out about the governance review is designed to do all that. John Lamont raises a very interesting comparison about the capability of Strathclyde regional council in educational policy development. I would very much accept that the regional councils had really strong capability in the development of educational policy and capacity. That is now spread across 32 local authorities. One of the points that I am interested in—I made this point yesterday in my statement—was about local clusters. There is in the north of Scotland a group called the Northern Alliance, which are a number of local authorities, such as the City of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Shire, Murray, Highland, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, who are coming together voluntarily to share good practice. I was at one of their sessions a couple of Mondays ago in Aberdeen. It was a very substantial, thoughtful, challenging occasion with good input, and it was obviously informed in the development of educational policy and thinking in all of these different localities. I am interested in exploring how we can ensure that we can be confident that we have all the capacity and capability that we require to guide this effort at a local level within Scotland. Thank you very much, convener. It was just to follow on John Lamont's point about resources and provision. I do not know if the cabinet secretary may be aware, but there are reports in today's press and journal where a leading educational expert says that we could risk a lost generation due to cuts in classroom assistance in particular, with the figures in Aberdeen falling from 191 in 2007 to 115 now. It would be the asset cabinet secretary what provision he would be making to increase the number of qualified nursery teachers, as well as reversing the decline in classroom assistance, because, as you know, both are absolutely crucial, particularly for our most vulnerable children. I have not seen the report to which Mr Thomson refers, but I will certainly look at that in the course of the day. Let me start off with a general point about budgets. I am afraid that Mr Thomson has raised it with me, so I will give Mr Thomson my very direct response. We have to live within the resources that are available to us that we decide to put in place. A large measure of those are determined by the decisions of the United Kingdom Government on finance. When a Conservative Government does to our public finances what the Conservative Government has done over the past five years, I just courtesely put it to Mr Thomson that it is a little bit rich to press me on the availability of public finances, but I have said it the once. I will try not to return to every time Mr Thomson asks me a question, but I cannot promise to be as well behaved as that in the future. There is an issue about resources, and I accept that. We cannot spend the same money twice, and I am beginning to sound like I used to sound when I was the old finance minister in this place, but it is old habits, Mr Scott Die Hard. Having said all that, there is a mix of skills that has to be in place in a mix of skills and talents that have to be within the education system. I certainly acknowledge within the early years, and again the delivery plan makes this point the importance of educational capability in the early years education, because again earlier, if young people are presenting, even at nursery at 2 with a vocabulary gap, even at 2, the more we have capable intervention at that time to try to address that the better, even if it is happening at 2, because the earlier we can nip this in the bud the better. I accept in principle the point that Mr Thomson makes about the importance of that skilled capability to be available at all stages of the educational journey, but I simply put on record the fact that there will always be challenges around resources. Thank you very much. I think what we will do is move on to a couple of questions around local authorities. Liz Smith. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can ask you about this cluster model, specifically what it is that you are likely to propose in terms of expanding on the idea that you would like to increase autonomy for head teachers, but at the same time to have regional control. That might provide a cluster model. I wonder if you could say something about that. The second thing is that if we were going to be really radical in an age where schools, colleges and universities are becoming much more integrated in the general pattern of educational development, would you foresee a cluster model that might include colleges and universities in the local community as well? We will be talking about a widening access to gender. That might have some interesting repercussions for furthering that widened access if the school community felt that there was a college in a university that was close on the same sort of ambitions that they had. Could you expand on this cluster model? The cluster model concept is designed to open up a debate about what is the most effective way of us ensuring that we deliver education policy effectively at local level. I cited, in my answer to John Lamont a moment ago, one of the examples of the education clusters, which is a gathering of local authorities that shares good practice and works collaboratively together and is actually working on some of the thinking around, for example, the challenge of teacher recruitment in different parts of the country. I am certainly very open to greater collaboration and co-operation between schools, colleges and universities. I think that one of the areas of great success in the reform agenda is the progress that has been made on the developing Scotland's young workforce. It is perhaps, for me, one of the best examples of... The advantage of the original concept and report was very, very clearly written. It is one of the most clearly written things that I have ever seen in my puff. As a consequence of that, it is given good and clear thinking at local level and it has now been implemented probably the fastest I have seen anything being implemented as well, simply because of its clarity. What that is enabling is young people's needs to be met most effectively because, again, I think that the danger of the type of approach that I take have been out and about and listening to what has gone on within the school community and the wider community is that you hear a whole range of different anecdotes, but I am hearing very good examples of young people who might have not fulfilled their potential in school being identified much earlier in the school journey as being somebody who would benefit from vocational education and good college partnerships are working with these young people. Before we know it, the young people are in a different learning environment but they are prospering. It is a learning environment that suits their needs and they are prospering. The clusters would be a reaction to a demand within a local community rather than being seen as a model that is good and transplanted into education generally. It is something that is going to be responsive to the local demand and to parents' wishes and to schools' wishes or is it something that you are looking at right across the board? It is a subject that is very much open for discussion as part of the governance review and I appreciate that the committee will want early clarity from me on all questions. I quite understand that but it is one that I intend to discuss widely because there are a lot of different viewpoints that will have to be taken into account as to how that develops. I think that some of the points that Joanne Lamont raised with me about her own experience in the environment that she operated in Strathclyde Regional Council is not lost on me in terms of the way in which co-operation across a wider area with more experience and resources available can be deployed very effectively. I have got to think also about how that can work in harmony with the work of Education Scotland, which is the principal organisation on the Government's behalf that is working to improve attainment performance in schools. My question really follows on from Liz Smith's line of inquiry. I think that we recognise that we need to review how we run our schools, how we resource our schools and I think that that is pivotal in terms of improving attainment and so on but I think that you are raising a number of questions. Already we have discussed where responsibility for standards lies between local authorities and schools. I think that the role of the clusters and finally there is the role for central government for actually setting those standards in the first place. I recognise that this is work in progress but could the cabinet secretary just in broad terms outline what he understands the different roles and responses between that network of four players of the school, local authority, regional cluster and central government both in terms of setting those standards, reviewing them and resourcing? Well it's an absolutely fascinating question because it's how long do you have, convener? Well we could be the visit of the President of the Republic of Ireland might be delayed as I work my way through this answer. It's actually a question I'm wrestling with a great deal in my own thinking and Liz Smith asked me a question last night actually in the education statement in which I shared some of this dilemma because there is a and I don't in any way wish to personalise this but Liz Smith is an advocate of schools having more and more autonomy to decide what they want to do but then asked me a question in Parliament essentially saying why don't you just tell them what to do so and I don't I'm not kind of felt a bit like that last night but I'm simply setting out there is a dilemma between how much do I prescribe and how much do I leave to teacher judgment and to school judgment and that's a and that's a and that's a very real debate that I'm having on a host of issues there's a lot of stuff in the delivery plan that I announced last night which is really quite directional from me cut this workload cut that bureaucracy send in the inspectors there's quite a lot of that now that's because I need to move the system to quickly to tackle some of these issues so that I can liberate teachers to teach so they can focus on closing the attainment gap so in that respect I'm taking quite a series of directional steps but I will never ever ever be able to make the judgment better in st Andrew's house about what a child in let me just get my geography right south morning south primary school will need than the teachers and south the teachers and staff in south morning south primary school so there is a there is a tension there there's a dilemma but what I want to be clear about is I want to have the whole system focused on closing the attainment gap on improving attainment within our schools with as with as few impediments as possible in the way so there are something so when I chew over my mind the question of what are some of the impediments in the way then having a local authority asking a school to do something we'll start we'll start at the right of the coface a teacher been asked by a head teacher to produce material to satisfy the head teacher that he or she can satisfy the education authority who the education authority can then satisfy education scotland and the education scotland can then satisfy me suggests to me that we've got multiple levels of bureaucratic burden on individuals when ultimately what we all want is to make sure that the child is able to get the educational experience that will enable them to fulfill their potential now that is frankly the 64 million dollar question which then has to be addressed to answer the question that mr johnson fairly asks me about well where does the balance of it all lie between school local authority regional cluster scotland's government and you know to be complete mr johnson you missed out education scotland and the sqa well thank you for correct so it's just it's there for completeness and I think as a country we have to look it's pretty hard at how that operates so I mean I mean let me be blunt I mean I think there was a fear in all of this that we somehow almost knee-dragged to the assumption that that there is no value add from local authorities from that layer and I think that there is a there is a subtext the discussion that's going on and I think that's something that I would guard against from from from two perspectives I think one is that I think that there is that that local perspective that that that the perspective over a local authority area and in terms of balancing and reflecting that I think local authorities can bring but also there's the element of accountability and I think that moving things to local clusters there and I think we've seen it in some of the other changes where you because there isn't a direct accountability to one body that it's sort of you know it's some sort of portfolio eyes or amalgamated accountability that you lose that and I think you know I think in some ways I would ask that the First Minister to really respond to Larry Flanagan's comments that he issued last night so if there is any suggestion of centralising control of schools and reducing the role of democratic elected local authorities in running education that would be an issue of huge concern for the teaching pressure now I guess my question is what would the cabinet secretary's response be to Larry Flanagan against that point? Well my response would be that we're involved in a discussion about this point and the one point I want to make clear is that I don't have a model or a blueprint of what this is going to look like and simply a fairly raising I think a lot of clutter in the system which I think we need to get some clarity over and the question that we have to answer is the one that Mr Johnson poses which is where is value best added and how is value best added and that might be the best way to address this question because ultimately the child cannot have a chance of fulfilling a potential without good educational input in the environment in which they are directly being educated so the question then that's you know that's the first point at which value gets added so the question then is well where else does value get added and and that's essentially what the governance review will explore and I go into that with a willing spirit to work with others to identify and the committee and the you know I think because these are these are issues which you know members here are representing different geographies of the country different backgrounds there's some well experienced individuals in the field of education around the table and you know I'm very open to input from the committee on how we take forward this discussion. Thank you very much. Just on the theme of that very reasonable discussion and it's probably totally unfair question but how many N5s should pupils at S4 be sitting because that's you seem to have encapsulated neatly and that for me is one of the fundamentals should you be setting how many? Well I wonder if Mr Scott would forgive me by asking the question back it's because because I think you see if I if I give the I had a discussion on this very point with my officials last night and because ultimately teacher judgment in individual schools will determine what will be the the what will be the best approach to presentation for those young for the for every young person involved so a young person if we work back from what a young person might leave school with let's say a young person leaves school with five hires working back from that point the theory of broad general education would say that young person is not disadvantaged in any way if they sit six N5s as opposed to eight N5s because ultimately they've come away with their five hires and what they will have experienced at six N5s will be a broad general education and that's what the theory would say I do accept however that in you know that that that doesn't create all the reassurance to pupils parents and some teachers that the right judgment that's been arrived at no I suppose it's that it's a you know it's a very fair question to ask me and it also comes if it's into the bill should I you know should I be saying well it should be x but you know in weighing that question up and I'm you know I you have to explore what would be the implications of me doing that on the confidence of teacher judgment and one of the things that I'm really anxious to ensure that I don't do don't do in any respect is undermine teacher judgment that's fair so are you open cabinet secretary to that discussion about that choice because I think it's pretty fundamental for everyone in schools never mind for parents and pupils I'm coming into this job with an open mind and I'm very happy to explore these questions and I think but what I don't want people to go away with is the sense that I'm leaping to a judgment about that point because I think having tested the arguments just last night about this whole question I certainly thought that you know I heard a very clear rational explanation as to why a school would be perfectly within its rights to say six and that fives would be appropriate for candidates who were then proceeding on to take hires at a later stage and they would be no damage or loss of potential for the young people that would be affected in that way but but I'm sure part that very rational discussion was that six does by definition limit to those six what that is six goes into five yeah he or she does five hires but if it's not eight there's by definition less choice and that's the at least something that has to be very carefully thought about when we're so struggling for stem cell stem cell stem stem subjects and languages and so on and so forth and and and in a sense the the the answer which is underpinned the answer to that point which is underpinned by the thinking around curriculum for excellence is that young people will have benefited from a broad general education to a more to a to a greater extent in their educational journey than would have been the case when I think I think I think when Mr Scott and I were wandering our way through all grades and hires and the in what my son calls the olden days indeed in my case badly thank you very much cabinet secretary following some of the concerns highlighted by the eis teaching union and indeed by my colleague Daniel Johnson how will you ensure that national agencies such as education scotland and the sq work with local authorities to ensure that there is a consistency in terms of the messages that are going to the teaching profession I think this is one area where I am prepared to be directional because I think it's it's too cluttered and I think any reading of mine if people were to be saying of the delivery plan yesterday that I had you know started a whole process of going in with a tacky boots to attack bureaucracy and duplication and all the rest of it then I wouldn't object to that headline at all because that's what I'm doing I think there's too much duplication I don't think there's sufficient alignment I think there's an awful lot of of work that's been asked of people that really is not on the critical path to sustaining the educational journey of young people so and what am I going to do about that well it's obviously over the last few weeks it's commanded a very significant amount of my time and attention to get us to the point where we were able to publish this yesterday it's been my highest priority since I became the education secretary to give this firmness of direction just at the end of the school term before the start of the new term in august which will enable schools to operate within a fashion because you know if I if I put it this way um well if I recount a conversation that I had with a head teacher from a primary school in Inverclyde we were talking about the whole issue of primary curriculum congestion I think is the delicate way I could put it and this head teacher simply said to me look I've decided that I'm going to concentrate on literacy and numeracy and health and wellbeing and whatever time we've got left will do justice as much as we can to the rest of the stuff I am not going to do it in eight equal parts in the curriculum and I said to him what about what about when the inspectors turn up and he said oh well you know we'll deal with that when they turn up well that's that I need to take that feedback and the chief inspector of schools has heard that feedback from me our inspection approach has to respect the fact that that teacher that head teacher is making a judgment appropriate for the children in his locality who have who are probably presenting themselves to presenting themselves to his school with a vocabulary deficit and numeracy issues and if he doesn't get on top of those issues for those young people then they'll never recover from them and our inspection regime has got to respect that and it will and that's what the inspection guidance from the chief inspector is all about and that's about lining up all the different elements so that teachers can take empowered decisions. Just one question Mr Swinney on the question of subject choice I entirely agree with you it should be about the best interest of each child and therefore you have to have flexibility within that subject choice the question at the moment for many parents however is that some schools cannot provide that flexibility because they are constrained by the subjects that they are able to offer sometimes because of teacher shortages sometimes because of a direction from a local authority that is insisting that they must have a certain number that's the problem it's not the fact that there can't be flexibility within individual schools I think that's that's part of the dilemma and I think there there are some some real challenges there because obviously if a school you know gets a direction from local government local authority that says you must do this then you know I quite understand the the difficulty for the head teacher to say well we're going to do something different in this school that's not a comfortable position to be in so you know that's why I'm very happy to engage in discussion about this this particular question there are of course other models on the issue about tackling teacher shortages and Elizabeth takes a particular interest in the in the Perthshire area I was at the award ceremony for st John's academy just the other week there an absolutely fabulous school in my constituency and I was talking to young people who at different stages do courses in other secondary schools in Perth city now I appreciate mr scott's constituency the idea of a secondary school cluster is a is a is a bold proposition but in the city of Perth they are able they are working in a fashion that allows certain subjects at certain levels to be available in school A available to pupils in schools A, B, C, D so that's some imagination and innovation to make it possible and it also is very good in terms of the the experience for young people Perth College and Perth College. Does the cabinet secretary think that the move to the cluster approach is ultimately a small step at least in terms of bringing about real local democracy and decision making at that level if we take and it will direct members to the fact that I'm still currently a councillor in North Lancer council but if we take North Lancer council as an example you're looking at a council there with 70 electing members due to increase bigger than the Welsh assembly and if you're considering that you know you're I think I welcome the move that local areas will be able to take a wee bit more responsibility and do you think it's in that that vein in that basis I think there's been a political unity about over recent years about having more local democracy. I think that the question for me is and what I'm going to try to do in my 10 years education secretary is to keep on asking my question is this getting it right for every child it's what I'm going to ask myself every time I'm taking a decision it's just the right thing for children's education or for children's wellbeing I'm just going to keep on asking myself that question all the time and ultimately making sure that the needs of children are met in the educational environment on the wellbeing environment must drive our decision making and some of the points that Mr McGregor makes about local decision making and local flexibility if that delivers what's right for the child then why not. Mr Point I'd make. Okay thank you, John. Thanks very much convenier just on that point is there a question however about local accountability which is about at the very local level low strathclyde regional council was a big organisation and not always the most wonderful organisation to work for it was at its very root a local councillor advocating for local communities and local schools and was able there for 10 funds decisions are made and my concern is if we're saying local accountability can be about local pressure but not without direct political influence in terms of local accountability don't you have a concern about that but I'll leave that there I suppose the other question I really want to come back to this question. Can I just just say something I totally accept the point about local political accountability and you know that that has to be it's a central part of our education system and it's it's you know and that's where statutory responsibility lies and it needs to be respected and reflected that's exactly why I'll take forward this discussion with our local authority partners and because I think sometimes I think we've got you know there's a danger that some local flexibility can be eroded by the need to follow a particular and this is the the point I've aired openly with the committee the dilemma between you know between central direction whether it's by me or by a local authority versus meeting the needs and circumstances of individual schools but ultimately there needs to be political accountability for all of these questions and on the question of accountability you know there is a lot of accountability for the education of young people as well within the school environment and I suppose the other observation I would make and I'm not sure he would agree with this that I've recognised the role of a head teacher as a leader but there is no doubt that in the past progress in education has been in challenging the teaching profession because as a kind of comfort zone and actually round mainstreaming access to education or young people with disabilities was and I'm I think it's great that that was there was movement in that but there's no doubt that you know that if you simply take a view leave the school to do the best also the best there has to be some kind of safeguards in that and I want to specifically to ask you this question about qualifications I understand exactly what you mean about six going into five but I think there's a different attainment gap there is the young person who falls out of the system early for whatever reason there's the other young person who may come from a background where there's a lot of deprivation but they themselves very motivated and very bright but they go to a school which does not offer the same level of opportunity to a range of hires I mean I once I did teach at one point where they were only offering four hires in other schools they'd be offering five and in a world where you're now competing at a higher education level not only if you've got to have five hires we've got a sixth one that's better if you've got a good group of advanced hires that's better still if you can show going back that you've got x number of a qualification before that the filtering out of young people because education inevitably at a higher education level is being rationed means that some of the attainment gap is about young people who have not been able to get the opportunity to access these qualifications and I hear what you say around sharing I mean we're doing this 20 years ago frankly that you could go and sit your higher English in the area that I taught but it also meant that the young person who was already challenged was having to travel to access a class where another youngster in a better area better in the sense that the school offered a broader range they sat in their classroom and they learned so you were immediately making it slightly more difficult for that young senior lots of young people rose to that challenge but I wonder if you've looked at this question of that different kind of attainment gap which is about not no matter how you individually are able to achieve your potential the actual opportunity we've got are more limited in other parts now might be a rural question it might be a question of deprivation but I wonder if that's something you're looking at yes it is and it's an entirely valid point and it's also integral to the issues that we have to consider about widening access to higher and further education so I think I think the question at John Lamont races is a you know it just has just a further illustration of the debate that has to be had as to whether you know we do it on a prescribed basis or do we do it on a on a flexible basis and you know there is no there is no absolute perfect answer to that question we have to we have to debate it and discuss it and I'm very open to the views of colleagues on some of these questions because ultimately to go back to my answer to Mr McGregor a moment ago if we want to get it right for every child why should a young person coming from the background that John Lamont has talked about being some way prohibited and prevented from realising their full potential because they happen to go to a school that has a more limited curriculum than a school that's got a broader curriculum and that's and there's an inequity in there that in a sense we that we have to tackle and the preamble to John Lamont's question I thought was really very significant because what what that involved was the whole question of challenge to what John Lamont expressed as challenge to head teachers to to do things differently that is that that's an essential part of having a framework in place which I think we have with the national improvement framework which is all about driving progress and achievement and improvements in attainment and improvement in outcomes for young people in in Scottish education so you would concede or would you recognise that if you accept that picture I describe that some of this is simply about resources that formula for staffing or whatever wouldn't recognise that the attainment gap that then comes from not having sufficient teachers across subjects because I've seen for example you no longer have a modern studies teacher a geography teacher and a history teacher because rationally it doesn't make sense in terms of the numbers but actually then means further on in that this very bright child can't do both geography and history job and what does that work might be would you recognise there is actually a case for at least looking at how you direct resources in that kind of way to address the attainment gap too well the first point I'd make is that I'm not I'm not sure that all of these judgments are about resources not all of them but some some maybe but I don't think I wouldn't concede that all of them are about resources and the second thing I would say is that obviously as we move towards a system where we are putting more resources directly into particular schools driven by the criteria around deprivation and disadvantage there are then mechanisms in place in those schools to try to address these issues okay thanks for that cabinet secretary I'm just going to move on to further education jaleen's got a question on further education yet and one of the things that I've been saying and I'm from the college background and I've been speaking to college Scotland recently and various people from further education is about the idea of having more flexibility in how they can use their funding and I wonder if the cabinet secretary's got any thoughts on that I think the I think I need to see just a little bit more specifics from the college sector about what their aspirations were and I certainly think that we who have taken a number of very clear decisions to relate the activities that are undertaken within colleges more directly to the world of work and that's been a major part of government policy in the course of the last few years and I think we're seeing the benefits of that in terms of the outcomes that are being achieved but I'm certainly very happy to consider the desire for flexibility and the use of funding by colleges with you know some detail on the the points that they'd like to consider one specific thing that recently my area in northeast of Scotland we've got what I think is a very good example of good practice with northeast scotland college which has footprints in schools it's for example there's a learning centre in ellan academy that they have there and they also have a very close relationship with robert gordon's university and the principle of the college described it to me as I don't mind how it's used because it's public money across the board and he was very much into using resources across schools colleges and sharing of resources has that been your experience when you've been speaking to to other colleges throughout the country? Increasingly I wouldn't say it's a complete journey but I think that I'm very mindful of the learner journey and if I go back to my some of what I've said earlier on it may be for some young people that if I take the ellan academy example there'll be some young people whose educational outcomes are much improved by the fact that instead of going into this door which is an ellan academy classroom to go into that door which is a northeast scotland college door their needs are fulfilled much more effectively and if that's the case then I think we should we should celebrate that and that's that type of closer working between schools and colleges is exactly the type and there's a role for employers as well to be closer to all that thinking about developing scotland's young workforce is integral to that process so I'd be very open to that type of proximity. Thank you. Okay thank you very much and I think we're just going to draw it to a close here we did say we said in our pre-meeting that there was a great deal of ground to cover and although you've been answering questions for an hour and 40 minutes there still is. So we will obviously in September we'll be having other sessions but I really appreciate your time thank you very much for answering the questions and you've created lots of work for the committee thanks very much for that. Sessions so could ask non-committee members to leave. Thank you.


Wel, yn y troff i TV'r hyfforddiadau yma, Everton 2, Chelsea nill yn oedd 3 pwynt o'r blws o'r ddweud. 3 gweithio yn 8 gweithio, 9 pwynt, 3 gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Chelsea on the other hand had a lot of the ball knocked it round as you'd expect for a, you know, an expensively assembled squad, but Colp Armour I thought was very good for them. He tested the Jordan Pickford from 25, 30 yards, the England goalkeeper making a good save. One I'd expect him to save, but he made it all, you know, all the same, got that out of harm's way. Defensively, he'd be caught quite well. Brewer, it was always a threat down the channels, he's powerful and pacy, and he had, you know, give to Yara Branthwaite a good contest between those two early on. And in the first half, like I said, I think neither team really, neither team really stretched the other one in, you know, in a way where we would be concerned about and they wouldn't have been concerned about us either in all fairness. And we got in a half time and it was nil nil and I was looking to think, and obviously it's just a guy on a gate got booked for his first tackle. It's a thought Michael Oliver, and he was poor Michael Oliver. We all know he's a Newcastle United fan and he doesn't like editing, quite clear. Probably jumped on board with that four-rhyther, they've decided to create some of their fans, let's not be mad at them all with the same brush. And all of it, you know, we know Don's in Newcastle Shades has jumped right on board with that. He's a poor referee, you know. I used to think he was a really good referee a few years ago, but he's got way some ways as it's gone on. He let Cuckirella do whatever he wanted. He was just really poor, he was really poor. Anyway, we got in a half time at nil nil nil. And I was thinking a half time this is there for the taking and obviously news filtered through Luton would be Manchester City, which isn't great. I was put a bit of extra pressure on and I was hoping we'd come out and really get it and that to change was what I wanted at half time. It was guy for Amadou O'nana. I thought we needed a little bit extra presence in the midfield, which is exactly what O'nana brought to us. And he'd come on second half and he made a huge difference. He really did. And that's not saying it's just a guy. He wasn't playing well because he was. I think it was James Garner who wasn't in it in the first half. But James Garner had a tremendous second half alongside O'nana who did help shift the balancing evidence favour. We'd come out for the second half. We were a bit more on the front foot trying to stretch them through Dominic Calvert-Lewan. And like a times in the first half, final ball just let us down. But we did get the goal and for once it was a really good bit of referee and by Michael Oliver. We broke down a Chelsea move. Dwight McNeill skipped away from Conagallager who unbelievably at this stage still hasn't been booked in the game. And he dragged McNeill back. He managed to shove him off and carry on running, got across him and bent a lovely ball into the path of Dominic Calvert-Lewan who was on the penalty spot. He stretched for it. He probably should have scored, though. He was one on one with Sanchez. He hit the shot. The Chelsea keeper saves it and it banters out to Adelaide Acore who followed it up and smashed it beyond him into the far corner. It's 11th goal in 31 games for Everton since Sean Deitch came in. Unbelievable return from a midfielder. And that gave us the bit between our teeth. There was the normal VAR nonsense for offside check. Again, why don't they bring the AI? The minute the AI comes in, it gets rid of this bollocks where you have to sit around waiting so long for a decision. I'll be honest, it's the second time it's happened in the last two home games and on both occasions, last with Beto's goalie, I expected it to be ruled out. It was given and Everton took the lead and the roof came off good with that goal and the crowd were excellent from that moment on. We did have to defend well Chelsea and Cole Palmer, like I said before, was excellent, I thought for Chelsea. Ashley Young went off in the first half. Nathan Patterson came on and I thought Patterson dealt with Mudrick brilliantly. Absolutely brilliantly. He deserves his goal Patterson, he really does. Everton then, we got a booking for Jara Branthwyth, the referee. He's his first foul really and the referee couldn't wait to book him and that means he misses the bernie game next week, which is a hammer blow really, but listen, he's been walking the tight road for a few weeks. They had a free kick on the edge of the box, Cole Palmer went under the wall but luckily Jordan Pickford had positioned himself really well and made a comfortable save. They got in a few times and Pickford, you know, he'd done what he had to do. He wasn't tested massively, he was shot, which I'd expect Jordan to save and he did. So we had to be weird, he brought on Raheem Staling, he was always a threat, power, you know, he was pacing up power. His pacing is very tricky, he came on, Nicholas Jackson came on and as they shuffled the pack. But Everton had to dig in and we did and we did have opportunities on the counter attack but again, the final ball just let us down. Beto came on for Dominic Calderloon trying to stretch Chelsea as well and we had to just make sure we got Memby on the ball. We got towards the end of the game and Jack Harrison was looking knackered. We were starting to waste opportunities on the break and the manager made a change. He took Harrison off and put Lewis Dobbin on it. You know, he'd be slightly ace on that because he had Dobbin ready for ages. So much so that Chelsea didn't have anyone ready and made a double shot before we put Dobbin on anyway. That's by the bye. Michel Enco was absolutely brilliant all afternoon mate, one tremendous block in the box as did James Garner track and Staling. And Everton, you know, we hoped to break quickly and try and get something, you know, on the counter attack. And that's exactly what we did with Dobbin. But we had a good move, good break and we won ourselves a corner. Chelsea had that to replace Robert Sanchez. He had that an issue that seemed certainly at the start of the second half. He went off. Everton corner came in. It was parried out by the keeper and Lewis Dobbin last day home and he's left full from about 12 yards. Put it back in to the far corner. His first senior goal for Everton. His first Premier League goal on what a time to do it. Ninety fit, ninety second minute rather. St. Gouldersund, the roof came off. Brilliant scenes. And it was just the case of could we see those seven minutes out without can seen. We did. Nothing better than Jordan Pickford falling on the ball with about 30 seconds to go to know that you have won the game. And it's exactly what we did. Brilliant performance. Another clean sheet. Absolutely delighted for the players. Delighted for Sean Dyche. I'm back in a week. Incredible. The manager deserves huge credit for this. The home form starting to turn now. You know we've beaten two of the richest clubs in the Premier League. Five-nil on I could get in the space of three days. That's not bad at all. And we are now four points clear of the relegation zone because Manchester City flipped that Newton game on its head in the second half from one. So brilliant performance in the end. In the end, bitterly Michael Enco is my man of the match. I thought he was outstanding. I'm going to do onan a notable mention for him. He did turn the game in Everton's favour. Pickford was excellent. Two centre halves did brilliantly. But Michael Enco for me was the man of the match. So there you go. Let me know what you think in the comments section below. Everton have won again. It feels brilliant. Give the video a thumbs up. Subscribe if you haven't. Thanks for watching. See you later.