Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to the seventh meeting of the Education and Skills Committee in 2017? Can I please remind everyone present to turn their mobile phones and other devices on to silent for the duration of the meeting? The first item of business is an evidence session with John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, on school education. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary to the meeting and his officials, Fiona Robertson, the director of learning, and Donabell, deputy director of strategy and performance. We have looked at a number of issues around school education. We have held an evidence session on the CFE management board. We have undertaken a number of focus groups, largely comprising of teachers. We have undertaken a survey of publicly funded mainstream secondary schools on the senior phase. We have surveyed higher education institutions about their entry requirements for young people taking SQA qualifications. We have held round tables on additional support needs in personnel and social education, and we continue to receive submissions from individuals and organisations on Scottish school education. Can I once again thank all the teachers, parents and young people that have taken the time to inform this work? Today's session will involve questions to the Cabinet Secretary on three topics in the following order. Additional support needs, personal and social education and the delivery of curriculum for excellence. I understand the Cabinet Secretary wishes to make a brief opening statement. I look forward to discussing the three issues with the committee, and I can perhaps set some of the context for that. On curriculum for excellence, the Government recognises and accepts that all education systems will face challenges. Scotland's education system is no different, but I believe that we are starting from a position of strength. The overwhelming majority of children and young people are performing well under curriculum for excellence. Notwithstanding my confidence in the foundations provided by curriculum for excellence, a culture of continuous improvement embedded by the national improvement framework must remain a key characteristic of Scottish education. This is the means by which we will ensure that all of our young people have the opportunity to excel in a way that works for them as individuals. I am clear that we must put the child at the centre of our policies through the approach of getting it right for every child and curriculum for excellence and focus on meeting the needs of every child as an individual, which is therefore an important connection to the other two topics that the committee raises about additional support for learning and personal and social education. On additional support for learning, Scotland has one of the most inclusive systems for the provision of support in schools. We have a system that focuses on barriers to learning and it is that approach that makes Scotland stand out from others. This approach is well regarded across Europe and has been adopted by a number of other countries. A cornerstone of our inclusive approach is the presumption of mainstreaming for those with additional support needs. We know that significant numbers of children and young people in their families have benefited from this inclusive approach. However, a necessity for us to ensure that the approach to mainstreaming is undertaken in an effective fashion, which is why I have commissioned a review of the guidance on mainstreaming to ensure that the existing guidance reflects the legislative and policy context and also succeeds in delivering on the expectations of individuals. I can confirm with the committee today that the extended consultation on this guidance will begin on 19 May and it will run until the end of August, enabling individuals over a long period of time to respond to the issues. The system in Scotland has much to be admired and much to be proud of, but we also have to accept that no system will be perfect and I am clear that we are committed to ensuring that children receive the support that they need and we will continue to work hard to make this even better. Lastly, convener, on personal social education, this is essentially demonstrated through curriculum for excellence by the emphasis on health and wellbeing, which is spread right through the curriculum. It is represented not by a single subject or class, but it is organised into six areas which provide a holistic view around mental, emotional, social and physical wellbeing, planning for choices and changes, physical education, physical activity and sport, food and health, substance misuse, and relationships, sexual health and parenthood. PSE is a taught subject which covers aspects of planning for choices and changes and the other aspects that I set out in my comments. I am interested in the evidence that the committee has gathered of reflections around this issue and, of course, the Government has also invited the Equal Opportunities Committee to reflect on a number of questions in relation to the guidance that is associated with the aspects of PSE in relation to relationships, sexual health and parenthood. We look forward to hearing feedback from that committee on those questions and I look forward to engaging with this committee on the issues that arise on the challenges in personal and social education. The Government is undertaking a range of different reforms on education and I am very happy to discuss those with the committee this morning. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We have a number of important issues on the agenda and I have asked the committee members and the witnesses to keep questions and answers as succinct as possible. In addition, members are reminded to ensure supplementary requests relate directly to the issue under discussion. As I mentioned earlier, we are starting with additional support needs. In relation to young people with additional support needs, what work is being done to ensure that best practice in local authorities is being carried out across all local authorities? There seems to be a disparity between some local authorities and others. Is the focus changing from inputs to outcomes? If so, can we be assured that this is the right way to go about it? On the question of assurance of performance, there is a variety of different ways in which performance in individual parts of the country are assessed. Some of that will be undertaken through the inspection work that is undertaken by Education Scotland or by the care inspectorate. Some of that will be undertaken in terms of the assessment of the handling of cases, which may eventually end up in a tribunal situation if there is a dispute about the way in which additional support needs are being provided to individuals. Fundamentally, the statutory responsibility rests with local authorities to ensure that provision is being delivered in accordance with the needs of every child. That requires an assessment to be made of the needs and the circumstances of every young person involved. There will be a great deal of work undertaken to design and determine the most appropriate approaches to take, and it will be for individual local authorities to form their own conclusions on that point. Your point about the shift from inputs to outcomes is an interesting example of a reflection of what is trying to be achieved within the support that is available. We are trying to ensure that the needs of young people are best met to ensure that they can fulfil their potential. The focus will be increasingly on the outcomes that can be achieved, but a crucial determinant of the outcomes that can be achieved is the proper support that can be put in place to meet the needs of those individuals. I will go back to the first point about being the responsibility of local authorities. As you quite rightly say, this is about getting the right for every child. What role does the Scottish Government have to ensure that if there is a clear disparity in the fact that some local authorities might be getting it more right for every child than others, what role does the Scottish Government have? Our approach is essentially to create the frameworks within which the additional support needs are met, to create those expectations on local authorities and to ensure that local authorities are working to deliver on those questions. Obviously, the role of the inspectorate is crucial in assessing all those questions, in guaranteeing that the quality of intervention that is put in place at local level meets what all of us would expect within the statutory framework that the Parliament has provided for. The cabinet secretary received quite overwhelming evidence from teachers that they have been limited in their ability to support people who have additional support needs. That was from witnesses and submissions to the committee, because they have seen real cuts in teaching assistance. Sylvia Hockney stated that things were better 20 years ago when she was going through the profession where she said that we were given training direct from a psychologist, from a speech language therapist to give us an understanding and knowledge of what we are looking for. That is just gone. How do you respond to that, cabinet secretary? I saw the evidence that the committee heard last week, and I know that there are elements of that evidence that are troubling. The example that Hockney cited of the training for autism awareness was, in my view, wholly unacceptable. As a consequence of that, I have made inquiries of Glasgow City Council to establish their view on that, which I think is important that I do that. Glasgow City Council has provided me with what I can only describe as very comprehensive information on the framework with which they deploy the training of individuals who will be responsible for supporting individuals with additional support needs. I have in front of me the provision and good practice document from Glasgow City Council, which, in my estimation, is a very comprehensive reference guide of what the local authority would expect of its staff. It is important to put that on the record to ensure that the committee hears—I am not a spokesperson for Glasgow City Council, but I want to satisfy myself that the City Council had a strong framework in place for handling those issues. I have seen the provision and good practice document, and I have seen the good practice document, which is the practical manifestation of that. I have also seen the specific training that is put in place for autism spectrum disorder by the City Council, all of which appear to me to be very comprehensive frameworks that the City Council has in place. That is what I think all of us would expect of a local authority, and I am glad to see that it exists in Glasgow City Council. I was surprised by the evidence that you heard last week because, in my estimation, this is not a charge that I would level at Glasgow City Council. I simply put that on the record to say that, while it is very important to listen to evidence from individuals and we have to take evidence seriously, it is also important that we look at the arrangements and frameworks that are put in place and that we take steps, as the Government does, to support families to ensure that they can receive the support. The assistance that they require to meet the educational needs of their children. That is the type of arrangement that we have to have in place to make sure that the needs of young people are met in all circumstances. Finally, I made reference in my original answer to the convener about the role of the tribunal. The law is quite clear on this, that there is a role for the additional support needs tribunal to ensure that families can receive, if they feel thwarted in their dialogue with public authorities, they can seek recourse to a tribunal to resolve the issue. The guidance that we give to local authorities and the approach that many local authorities aim to take is to avoid getting to a tribunal by satisfactorily addressing the issues about which parents will be concerned at the earliest possible opportunity. That would strike me as being the most effective way to act in that fashion. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. I think that you have pre-empted some more of my questions, so I thank you very much particularly for addressing the point that was raised by Sophia Hockney about Big Bang theory. In the submissions, a number of teachers were quite clear that they have seen an impact due to the reduction in the number of teaching assistants in particular and there has been quite a marked decrease. Do you see a correlation there in terms of the support that is available and what are the steps that the Government intends on taking to help to improve on that? The first thing that I would say is that I do acknowledge that there are challenges in public expenditure and the Government works assiduously to try to address those. They are, of course, caused by the fiscal environment in which we operate, Mr Thomson, which is a product of the political decisions with which you are closely associated. I am acknowledging that, Mr Thomson. I am also recognising the fact that the fiscal environment of the United Kingdom makes that challenging for us. Obviously, if the Government had taken different courses, for example, to pass on a tax cut in the budget, there would have been less money available for public services for the forthcoming financial year. If we look at the number of support staff supporting pupils with additional support needs, in 2008, that was £12,572. In 2016, it was £12,883. When I look at what local authorities are spending on additional support needs, in the latest data that I have available to me, local authority expenditure on additional support needs increased by £1 million. That total amount of expenditure was £584 million, which was 12 per cent of total educational spend, so the number is increasing. Of course, there are many more children identified as having additional support needs, but fundamentally, that is because of the total expenditure. The change in the classification of young people with support needs in the broadening of definitions that took place around about 2011-12. One more. Thank you very much, convener. First, I will address the point that the financial environment in independent Scotland has been a lot more challenging. We received a large number of submissions from parents in particular, suggesting that access to resources in particular to support their children was different and patchy across the country, where some parents do that to persist. Sometimes they depend on how persistent that particular parent was in relation to the support that they got. What steps, again, can the Scottish Government take to ensure more equal treatment for parents so that they are not having to keep fighting against the machine? That is something that we seem to come through quite clearly in some of the evidence that we have. A couple of important issues here. There is a question about what the statutory framework here gives local authorities the responsibility to take forward, as democratically elected organisations, their responsibilities in their respect. Members of Parliament quite frequently take exception to me intruding on the roles and responsibilities of local authorities. Mr Thomson, if I follow the logic of his question, would have me stipulating much more directly to local authorities what they should and should not do in terms of the provision. I simply offer that as a political choice, but statute essentially gives local authorities the ability to design that approach in their locality. What the Government does is essentially three things. One is that we provide over a legislative framework which provides recourse for parents who are frustrated by the way in which support is available to their young people, to their children. Secondly, we fund inquire, which is a national advice and information service that supports parents and equips parents with knowledge and information to navigate their way through the system to ensure that the needs of their young people are met. Thirdly, the Government presides over a policy framework that is anchored in the concept of getting it right for every child, which we work with local authorities. Every local authority in the country will be signed up to getting it right for every child. What we have to do is to work with, in partnership with local authorities, to ensure that they have the necessary approaches in place that can ensure that the needs of every single young person are met as part of the education system. I am tempted to say that most parents I speak to, rather than taxpayers' money, were spent on issues such as the nuclear weapons, but we will go down that road in response to the previous comments of independence. In terms of the question of resources, additional support needs is very complex in that the situation across Scotland and local authorities is very variable. Of course, every child is different in terms of their needs as well. It is very difficult to try to take a national picture of as we take forward this debate. However, the evidence that we have heard time and time again is that it is a question of resources in terms of ensuring that we get it right for every child, especially in terms of additional support needs. Do you think, Cabinet Secretary, that in 2004, when the act was passed, that people, especially Parliament and the politicians of the Government at the time, envisaged the requirements that would exist for resources to make sure that we could do this properly? I think that Parliament recognised that in the sense that I do not think that Parliament was under the illusion in 2004 that legislation of this type would not require, on an individual level, a level of expenditure per pupil that would be significantly different to the level of expenditure that would be allocated routinely. For primary or secondary education in Scotland, I think that Parliament was very clearly aware that this would be a more costly type of provision to put in place. I think that what Parliament was mindful of was the importance of ensuring that we took steps to address the needs of every single child and that those needs should be effectively met within our education system, whether that was in a mainstream environment or whether that was in some special environment that was available for young people with particular needs. I think that Parliament was cognisant of that point when it passed the legislation and put in place a framework that I think is designed to serve young people extremely well. Let you cabinet secretary, I was in Parliament in 2004 and voted for this legislation. Never for a moment did I think that there would be such a huge demand on resources to fulfil its aims, so I suspect that the public purse has been unprepared for the demands of additional support needs. I am just trying to work out how we can arm parents with the ability to hold their local authorities to account as to whether or not local authorities are devoting appropriate resources to additional support needs. I am wondering whether there is any way in which we could do that on a national basis or if you have given any thought to how we can ascertain what the situation is. I know the inspectorate because in there it looks at how schools are fulfilling their obligations, but in terms of the actual resources being allocated, how do we get to the bottom of that? I think that this issue has to be addressed through a number of different steps and opportunities to ensure that the needs of children and young people are being met appropriately within the system. At the very start of the process where the educational needs of a young person are being identified as perhaps not going to be mainstream educational requirements or that a young person has additional needs, it is important that that is addressed properly at the earliest possible opportunity. All of our approach, all of our frameworks, all of our guidance to local authorities, all of the requirements of statute place an emphasis on that period. It is about making sure that early interaction on those questions delivers what families are looking for. Our system is designed to do that. Obviously, if that does not happen, there is recourse available to families which ultimately will go through individual decision making processes in local authorities and may ultimately end up at a tribunal to determine whether the needs of a young person are being met consistent with the legislation that both Mr Lockhead and I supported in 2004. Obviously, it is an extremely stressful journey for families who are already dealing with tremendous stress of a young person who will have additional support needs if they have to end up working their way through all of that to get to a tribunal. In the interests of resolving issues, the emphasis has to be on the earliest possible intervention. Obviously, I would be interested in the committee's view, cognisant of the point that I made to Mr Thomson about the proper role of local authorities to exercise their functions and to be held to account for them, as to how the committee believes we could apply greater support needs. We need greater obligations on local authorities to ensure that those needs are met at the earliest possible opportunity. By that approach, we would have the best opportunity to address the needs of young people within our system. To ask the cabinet secretary whether he acknowledges that, although we are having a big debate over additional support needs, and although the two subjects are not unrelated, the whole issue of emotional and disruptive behaviour is one that teachers constantly raise in terms of not being able to give children enough time in the classroom to do teaching properly? I think that that is a product of the additional support needs debate, and that is again where we have to ensure that we have in place the support and the assistance. I see many good examples around the country of that being put in place, but equally I deal with constituents who have their frustrations about this issue. I hear from members of the public around the country of the frustrations that Mr Lockhead raises with me, and I think that it is important that local authorities put in place the arrangements and support that meet the needs of young people in their educational setting. We also have to be open to the fact that the needs of some young people will not be met within a mainstream educational environment, and they need to have more focused support put in place to address those issues. The judgments about that are implicit in the review of the mainstreaming guidance that I am taking forward. I read from Richard Lockhead's comments about support for parents and getting help if their children get challenges in schools. I want to look at that from the perspective of teachers. If teachers feel that they are not getting the CPD, is that something that we could look at as well? Certainly, there is a need for CPD to be available for members of the teaching profession across this and a range of other issues. Of course, it is important that that is delivered in all circumstances around the country. Of the additional support needs teachers who were imposed in 2010, one in seven are no longer there and one in seven of those posts have been cut. We have debated in the past what the cause for that is, but I am wondering why in your recently announced recruitment drive for new teachers none of the proposals specifically address additional support needs teaching. The proposals that I have announced are about ensuring that we identify new routes to encourage more recruits to come into teaching. I think that in terms of the points that are raised about educational progress, there will be a range of teachers who are meeting the needs of young people in an educational setting that will be broader than just those who are identified as teachers focused on additional support needs. However, we also have to make sure—this is part of the on-going dialogue that we have with the initial teacher education system in Scotland—that in the ITE activity there is, due account taken of equipping new teachers with the skills that they require to support young people with additional support needs. I agree with you that, with one in four young people identified with an additional support need, they cannot all be taught and do not all need to be taught specifically by ASN teachers, but on that point of all teachers being equipped to support young people with additional support needs. One of the proposals in your recent recruitment drive discusses combining the one-year postgraduate and the one-year probation. Concerns have been raised about that. That will limit the opportunity for new teachers to receive adequate training in supporting young people with additional support needs. With such clear issues as it stands for mainstream teachers being able to support young people with additional support needs, why are we reducing the amount of time that new people in the profession will get to gain those skills? That is one of a number of proposals that has been brought forward by colleges of education. It is my invitation to identify routes by which we would be able to encourage more teachers to come into the classroom and to get them there quicker. There is always a but in that. That cannot compromise the standards that are expected of the General Teaching Council of Scotland. All of those routes have to be considered, verified and certified by the General Teaching Council, and they may not all get there. It is important that I put that on the record, that those are proposals. The issues that Mr Greer raises are legitimate issues for the General Teaching Council to consider to assure themselves that the quality threshold that we expect of all teacher education within Scotland is maintained by each one of those routes. I have invited the colleges of education to come forward with those proposals. I will not be the decision maker about whether they surpass the test. That will be the independent General Teaching Council for Scotland that will determine that issue. Do you believe that teacher training courses, as they stand, offer adequate time and opportunity for training in additional support needs? Yes, but I am certainly prepared to listen to evidence that suggests to the contrary. It is something that I will happily discuss with the colleges of education to ensure that the breadth of expertise that is required to be generated for the members of the teaching profession are generated as a consequence of initial teacher education. I believe that the evidence that the committee has received would indicate that, so I would be happy to take that up with you. Thank you very much, Ross. I am sorry, Fulton. My line of questioning has been mainly covered and I am glad that the cabinet secretary has had the opportunity to outline for the record the role of local authorities in this key area. What I want to ask about, if we accept that ASN is part of the overall attainment issue, what is the cabinet secretary's view on how the attainment fund may be used to help to close the gap with this specific group of young people and how individual headteachers might have a role in that? Obviously, we are seeing improvements in the performance of young people with additional support needs. In 86.2 per cent of pupils with additional support needs have a positive destination, which is up on previous years. We have a rising proportion of pupils with additional support needs that are leaving school with one or more qualifications at SCQF level 5 or better. There is encouragement in terms of the performance of young people with additional support needs and improvement in performance. Clearly, Mr MacGregor is correct that part of the attainment gap that has to be closed relates to the performance of young people with additional support needs. Clearly, the focus that can be delivered within schools through pupil equity funding can enable headteachers to take decisions that will directly address the requirements and the circumstances of young people with additional support needs and to make sure that those can be best met as a consequence. I think that there is every opportunity to do that and, of course, by the mechanism that we have chosen to do that, that opportunity rests with headteachers to be able to take forward that agenda. As my other points were covered in the interest of time, ma'am, I thank you very much. That is Fulton MacGregor, Fox, just in case. I want to ask just a couple of questions about the reality of additional support needs in schools. You will be aware of the enable report and the report from NESUWT. Do you regard those as legitimate reports in terms of telling us something about what is happening in our schools? One of the things—I note what you say about training and so on—we have picked up in relation to definitions of mainstreaming. I think that I was there back in the day when the argument that was made by parents was utterly compelling around the presumption of favour of mainstreaming. That it was the benefit to all young people within a school setting for young people to learn together. One of the things that has come up is that, first of all, personal support assistance may be well trained, but instead of maybe concentrating on one or two children or one class are now stretched across two or three classes, would you regard that as reasonable support? Some young people with additional support needs may be in the mainstream, but they are only expected to attend a couple of days a week, a couple of mornings a week because the supports are not there. Would you regard that as being mainstream education? That would not strike me as mainstream education, no. I also do not think that it would be—I am making a general remark here, but it would not strike me as education that would fulfil the potential of young people because young people have to be given every opportunity to fulfil their potential in every respect. I think that that type of example that John Lamont cites for me of part-time education is essentially the point that she makes that I do not think is satisfactory. I think that I probably come at this whole issue from the same perspective as John Lamont that I believe fundamentally in the principle of mainstream. I have seen some fabulous examples of it at work. If I share one anecdote with the committee, I was at St Rock's primary school in the East End of Glasgow some months ago, and St Rock's includes many children who are hard of hearing. I went into one class and, as I started to speak to the class about some project work that was on the wall, I was stopped by a boy in the class who came up to me with a loop, which I had to put over my head. Not for him to be able to hear, but for one of his friends to be able to hear, which I thought was the demonstration of the power of inclusive education that this young boy was looking after the interests of one of his pals in the class that he could hear what I was going to say. I think that that is an illustration of where we can see mainstream inclusive education working very effectively, but we have to be satisfied that that is what young people are receiving as their mainstream education. That is why it is important that we go through the exercise of looking at the guidance, because we have to be satisfied that the guidance enables local authorities to come to the correct conclusions in partnership with families about what will make the needs of young people. I see enough cases coming to me either as a constituency member of Parliament, or as the cases that come to me through my ministerial correspondence, where families are expressing frustration about that point. The balance and the judgment about whether the needs of a young person can be met in a mainstream setting or whether they need a different educational setting is a very fine balance to be made, but it should be driven, in my view, by the educational needs of the young person. Enable Scotland says that truly inclusive education is still far from a reality for young people with learning disabilities. The evidence from the NSWT and the evidence that we took ourselves is, in fact, mainstreaming is very far from the reality for many young people. I hear what you are saying about how effective and powerful it can be, but there is no doubt that there are phenomenal pressures inside schools. Where is that pressure coming from if we accept that local authorities like yourself and members of this committee are committed to this policy? What is the solution to the part-time education, the personal support assistant over three classes, rather than one that I was talking to? A hugely experienced primary school teacher, a 40-year-standing, unbelievably committed professional, tells me that the job has never been as hard as it is now and the pressure on in the classroom in terms of the support that you get to deliver your job is immense. What is causing that and how do we address it? I think that there is a range of different needs within the classroom and that will present scenarios that local authorities must make judgments about as to whether or not the appropriate skills and resources are available to support young people and fulfil their educational potential. Fundamentally, those judgments will be made within schools. In response to Mr McGregor's point a second ago, the Government has put in place resources and created an approach that enables schools to have more opportunity to determine what will best meet the needs of young people in their educational setting. We look to schools and local authorities to work in partnership to deliver on those objectives. Earlier about the fiscal pressures that you are under, would you accept that local authorities are under resource pressures as a consequence of decisions made by the Scottish Government and that the resources that are now available to address the support needs of young people are under pressure? I hope that the mainstreaming policy is under pressure and I wonder if you share my concern that for many young people their experience of mainstream education is one of failure and that the danger for the policy is that under those pressures the young person with additional support needs is seen as the problem. How do we address this question if we are not able to address the whole question of resources to local authorities as part of that consideration? There are two strategic financial points that John Lamont has raised with me. The first is that in the recent Accounts Commission analysis of the changes in Scottish Government funding, the reductions in Scottish Government funding from the UK Government and the implications for local authorities in Scotland have largely been of the same magnitude. In the same way as the Government in Scotland has seen reductions in its budget of a particular level, that has largely been reflected in the local authority situation in general. My observation is that, in challenging budget environments, local authorities have been treated fairly as part of the process. The second strategic financial point is in relation to the education spend of local authorities. In the last financial year, there was a 2.7 per cent increase in local authority education expenditure, a 1.9 per cent real-terms increase in that expenditure. In addition to that, the Government has put in place pupil equity funding, which is investing directly in 95 per cent of the schools around the country to ensure that there is new resources to provide additional funding. There are interventions that will help us to close the poverty-related attainment gap in Scottish education, which I think helps in that respect. The final point that I would make is back to the point about the attainment and the achievement of young people with additional support needs. I accept that there will be frustration within parents that their young people are not able to achieve all that they think they should be able to achieve because the types of support are not available to young people with additional support needs. I come back to the statistics that I put on the record earlier on about the rising proportion of young people with additional support needs who are securing qualifications at SCQF level 4 and 5, which are increases over the course of the last few years. That is a welcome indication that young people are fulfilling their potential within the education system in Scotland. I do not accept the evidence that we have heard—the anecdotal evidence that we have heard within our communities—that things are very tough in terms of mainstreaming policy and that there are major challenges being highlighted by teachers and families about the actual support that young people are getting and that teachers and support staff have in order to make the policy work. I have said that I take seriously the NHSWT and the enabled reports. I have also indicated that I quite clearly see that there are challenges and there are strains within our education system, but I am also pointing out to the committee that within this context of financial constraint and the pressures under which we have operated, we can see the achievement of pupils with additional support needs continuing to rise. I think that that is all welcome trend. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We are going to move on to PSE, but before we do, you mentioned earlier the option for parents to challenge local authority decisions. Can you just clarify for the committee which children can have their cases considered by a tribunal because I am not sure that all children can? Am I right or wrong there? The tribunal will make its judgments based on the cases that come to it. Obviously, there will be processes to be undertaken through individual local authorities to try to address the issue within the local authority, but fundamentally the opportunity to go to a tribunal exists if the case passes the tests that are set out in legislation. Moving on to the questions on personal and social education, I would like to ask that the committee wrote to you last week detailing all the ideas that came from a very constructive session that we held on personal and social education. There is clearly some inconsistency in the delivery of PSE, and so the ideas sent to you specifically focus on how that could be improved. I wonder whether you have comments on the potential merits of the ideas raised by the young people who gave evidence last week. Fundamentally, convener, I am open to ensuring that we address those issues. Personal and social education covers, as I said in my earlier remarks, quite a range of different topics that are essentially distributed through the curriculum under the theme of health and wellbeing. Health and wellbeing is one of the three primary curricular areas, alongside literacy and numeracy, that are deployed across the curriculum. The nature of our curriculum is that we do not have a national template of the curriculum. We do not specify at national level that that must be taught. It is very much up to the teaching profession to formulate the approaches within the classroom that meet the expectations of the guidance around the curriculum. That is inherent in the thinking behind curriculum for excellence. I am very happy to look at the elements of personal and social education and to look at the issues that have been raised with the committee to ensure that we take every step that we can to ensure that the education is more consistent and that it is meaningful to young people where it is deployed.  It is a very difficult question for me to answer for two and a half thousand schools in the country. What I can assure Mr Greer about is that, where inspections are carried out by Education Scotland, it will be before that. In terms of the guidance that we set out, there is very clear guidance on those questions. One of the six elements that I talked about earlier on was relationships, sexual health and parenthood. At the guidance level, we expect that to be undertaken in every school in the country. When it comes to inspection, Education Scotland will be assessing and considering those issues as part of their inspection approach. The evidence that we have heard as a committee seems to me to be quite overwhelming, but young people are not receiving anything like consistency in sex and relationship education. Almost 9 to 10 LGBT young people, for example, weren't receiving an education that was relevant to them. Huge numbers of young people were not being educated about consent, which seems like an essential principle, a starting principle in that education. The UK Government has, this month, tabled a bill to make PSHE mandatory, not to specify line by line exactly what every young person is to be taught, but to ensure that there is a minimum standard that all young people are guaranteed. I was wondering what your reaction to that is and if the Scottish Government would consider something similar. We operate in different education systems, and that is my fundamental response to that, that we do not operate on the same education system as prevails in England. My second point is to say that the Government attaches great significance to this question, which is why, in the direction that was given by the chief inspector of education to all teachers in the country in August of last year, one of the key messages was to prioritise literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing across the curriculum to ensure that all learners make the best possible progress. Health and wellbeing includes that emphasis on relationships, sexual health and parenthood. In among the points that Mr Greer made there, he talked about a number of issues around consent, where I unreservedly agree with him about the importance of young people understanding the question of consent. However, he also raised the issue of LGBTI young people and what education is available not just for them but for all young people about LGBTI issues. As Mr Greer will be aware, I have agreed to the request of the Equal Opportunities Committee for them to reflect a bit some further on those questions before the Government publishes our updated guidance on relationships, sexual health and parenthood. Ordinarily, we would have published that, but the committee asked me to give them an opportunity to reflect some further on that information, and I have happily agreed to that. I would say to Mr Greer that the issues that Mr Greer raises are A, very important, and B, issues that we have to satisfy ourselves that the guidance is effective in that respect. I suppose that that brings me back to answering his fundamental question about the approach that we take. The approach that we take in the Scottish education system is to ensure that the guidance is effective. That is how we assure ourselves that the approach has been taken in the correct fashion within schools, and then that we have the inspection arrangements and mechanisms to ensure that that can be followed up. I accept that correct confrections has a flexible approach. I support the correct confrections approach, but we should be evidence-led in our policymaking. The evidence in PSE is that a flexible approach is resulting in inconsistencies in areas where essential life skills should be delivered to all young people. As a final question, I would like to ask that PSE, in all of our evidence, seems to come up as something that was undervalued within schools, because it is not an assessed subject, because it does not feature prominently in inspection reports. How do you believe that we can make PSE more valued within schools? Acknowledging that often the issue at the core of that is teacher work code, and when teachers are under pressure, the priority for them is to get young people through assessed subjects? Fundamentally, curriculum for excellence—this is at the top of the requirements of curriculum for excellence—is to help children and young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. We look to the teaching profession to take those aspirations and to turn those aspirations into reality in every one of the two and a half thousand schools around the country. I fail to be able to see how you can make young people successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors without the emphasis on health and wellbeing that the chief inspector of education has put. By saying to every teacher in the country, there are three superior curricular areas, and they are literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing. I think that if we believe in the structure of our curriculum arrangements whereby we put in place a framework at national level which sets out the aspirations of what we are trying to achieve to make sure that young people are equipped with the capacities to face the modern world, then we rely on the teaching profession to put that into practice at local level. I cannot see how that can be done convincingly and effectively and meeting the needs of young people without health and wellbeing being central to the approach that we take, which is why it is so prominent in the commentary of the chief inspector of education. One of the things that struck me when we were taking evidence on this just a week or so ago is the sheer breadth of subjects that were being suggested by people giving evidence, the submissions that were made. If you look at them in isolation, each one has a validity. Each one would be useful, but clearly there are so many of them. While some of them might be picked up elsewhere in the curriculum, a great many of them aren't. We are saying that we are not going to be prescriptive necessarily to local councils or local schools who determine those. Should there be some subjects that are mandatory? Should there be some subjects where they have to prioritise? I think that that is reflected in the answer that I have just given to Mr Greer in what the chief inspector of education has set out to the teaching profession. There are eight curricular areas within curriculum for excellence, but the chief inspector is crystal clear in his documentation that planning should prioritise literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing across the curriculum. That prioritisation is being made in the direction that the chief inspector of education has given. It is important that, in doing so, that is reinforced by their being clarity about what one might expect to find in health and wellbeing. This is part of Mr Greer's point about the consistency that applies across the country. It is important that that is reflected in all circumstances so that having attached that priority to health and wellbeing is followed through in the schools across the country. Given the validity of many of the other aspects that we would like to see people trained in, or at least educated in, is there a danger that we are expecting teachers to cover too many subjects in this? I wouldn't see teachers having all those skills, all the training that is necessary to deliver on each and every item that is being put forward. Even if you distill it down to a smaller number, it is still a big ask. There are opportunities for teachers to deliver those elements of the curriculum or they are able to bring in resources and external parties that may well make an impression on some of those questions. There are some very interesting projects in schools that invite external organisations to come into the school to provide education on certain issues, such as substance misuse, where there can be very effective communication and education to young people from external organisations, which teachers facilitate and which give young people the type of insight that would be beneficial to them. The curriculum for excellence is structured in a fashion to encourage and to motivate that to be the case. The other thing is that there is a limited amount of time allocated by schools for PSE, which by the very nature of that limits the number of subjects that can be discussed. I don't think that we should just look at those issues being fulfilled by the amount of time that is allocated to PSE, because one of the points that has gone back to the chief inspector's guidance is that health and wellbeing is identified as a responsibility of all within the school. It is not just about what you do in your allocated time on PSE. There will be various ways in which, throughout the curriculum, there is the opportunity for young people to have experience of issues around health and wellbeing, which will meet the expectations of the curriculum. Before I start, I must declare an interest in my husband's guidance teacher. My question is about the training for guidance teachers and how that may be a route into addressing some of the problems that the young people who spoke to us had about PSE. There seems to be an inconsistency in the quality and training of guidance teachers, particularly given that most teachers have gone into secondary teaching to do a subject and then become guidance teachers later on. Is there something that we can address in terms of teacher training where we have anybody who has gone in to teach guidance maybe has to do some kind of specific course in order to be able to qualify to become a guidance teacher? I have to say that one of the things that I have spoken to my colleagues about is that becoming a guidance teacher is often seen as a route into management for some people when, in fact, becoming a guidance teacher should be something that a person opts to do because they want to be a guidance teacher and they want to be effective in PSE. I am interested to know your thoughts on that. One of my general priorities is to strengthen the focus on continuous professional development within education and a lot of the steps that I am taking to declutter the curriculum and to reduce the volume of advice and bureaucracy is to actually create the space in the curriculum and the capacity for teachers to be able to take forward continuous professional development. That is a general priority and I think that the specific priority that Gillian Martin makes in relation to guidance professionals is an important and appropriate point to make sure that those individuals are equipped to support young people as effective as they can in assisting their wellbeing. It is obviously likely to be a carry-over of that into additional support needs that we have just considered a moment ago. When we are talking about additional support needs, we talked about how you are speaking with the GTC and education colleges on how teacher training can maybe be adapted to best reflect the increase in demand for ASN. I think that what was thrown up the other week when we were talking about PSE is that PSE training perhaps needs to be given some kind of boost or overhaul or to be able to adapt to the new circumstances that we find around the pressure around things around consent, the use of online social media and all those issues that are thrown up as a result of that. As I have indicated already in my answers, I am really quite open to this question. We had been planning some further guidance on relationships, sexual health and parenthood but committees have asked me to provide them with the opportunity to reflect on that a bit further and I have agreed to that so I would have expected that to be available by now. I am very happy to engage parliamentary committees on that question but I think that there is a wider issue that the committee's work and inquiry may open up which I am certainly very happy to consider. I think that it would be remiss of us if we are not talking about PSE. We did not reference some of the evidence from Jordan Daley from the TIE campaign who said that the obvious of the elephant in the room is faith schools and their position on what they are prepared to teach. It is not acceptable to continue opt-outs on moral grounds as there are LGBT young people in faith schools that do not have the same kind of PSE provision that you maybe get in other schools. I think that that is an issue that is obviously controversial but I think that it is something that we may be able to look at. I think that it is an issue that we need to be mindful of. It is important that young people are equipped to deal with the modern world and the faith schools in Scotland have a particular perspective about how to equip young people with the knowledge and the awareness to address the world in which we live. I think that we have to work collaboratively and constructively with faith schools to ensure that young people are equipped in the best way possible to deal with the challenges of the world as they find it. I think that the evidence that we got was that the faith schools were not equipping young people and that is the point. I understand the need for the cabinet secretary to be intensely tactful in this area but he may wish to reflect on the evidence. I actually wanted to ask a question related to her earlier point about guidance teachers. Do you think that, cabinet secretary, there is a role for guidance staff to have a much broader range of skills than just being teachers? In other words, a social work background, a youth work background, particularly in the context of PSE and the rather alarming evidence that Ross Greer was citing earlier this morning? I think that there may be a case for that and certainly something to consider. The other way to look at this is about how guidance staff can be essentially the facilitators of some of those skills coming together to meet the needs of young people. I think that it might be quite difficult to recruit individuals who would pass the matrix that Mr Scott just talked about of education, social work, community development backgrounds. I think that it would be quite difficult to get that bread. What I think is possible is that guidance staff will be able to establish the connections with other professionals who should be able to work together to meet the needs of young people within a school setting and to put together a proposition in terms of the delivery of health and wellbeing within the curriculum that actually fulfills what I think we all would like to see delivered in this respect. It may be that that cannot be embodied in one individual, but I think that guidance staff need to be well connected to enable that to be delivered. Ross Greer's question is just for a bit of clarification in your answer to Ross Greer. You spoke about the guidance that is available to schools. My understanding is that it is not a requirement on schools to act on that. Do you have any idea in terms of how many schools are delivering on the guidance and how many schools are not? In a sense, it comes back to the question that Ross Greer asked me, which is, can I be certain that something is happening in two and a half thousand schools in the country? I can't give a definitive answer to that question. What I can say is that the Government puts in place the framework and the guidance, and we rely on teaching professionals the length and breadth of the country to implement that and to apply that within their educational setting. Following on from Gillian Martin's point, in his evidence of the committee, Jordan Daley stated that 86 per cent of LGBT people reported that LGBT issues were never discussed or taught in their schools. I don't know if the cabinet secretary is aware, but yesterday there was another press report about a young boy of 14 committing suicide. I urge caution that we don't know the reasons, but he was reported that it's because he recently came out of his gain and had severe bullying at school. I ask the cabinet secretary not as an MSP or a member of the committee, but I ask personally someone who has been through the same kind of bullying for just being bullied for who I was. Is there any intention with the Government to act with some urgency? I appreciate what he is doing in relation to equal opportunities committee, but will there be any urgency from the Government on this particular issue? First of all, I have seen the press reports to which Mr Thomson refers, and the committee will understand that I am not in a position to express any comment of him to say that I express my deepest sympathy to the family of the young man in question, and I cannot imagine what they are experiencing just now. On his substantive point about bullying, bullying is reprehensible in whatever shape or form it takes place. We have a very clear expectation on the education system to tackle bullying and to support young people in all of their needs that they have. We are looking very carefully at the issues that have been raised by the TIE campaign. I willingly agreed to the request of the Equal Opportunities Committee to look further at this question, and I will move as quickly as I possibly can do on these questions. We want to make sure that we get this approach correct. Fundamentally, there is a statutory obligation on schools to follow the guidance that we set out, so we want to make sure, given the fact that Parliament has created a statutory environment around this question, that that is the expectation of what young people experience within the school system. It is very brief on Gillian Martin's last point. Do you believe that it is acceptable for a school not to teach LGBT young people about their own lives, their own identity, if that school has some kind of moral issue with it? I think that it is important that young people are equipped to face the world and to be equipped to know themselves and to be able to know their own sexuality and to have an awareness of all questions of sexuality, so they must be equipped to enable that to be the case. We will now move on to questions on the delivery of curriculum for excellence, and I will start off with Liz Smith. Mr Swinney, can I ask you about the letter that you sent to the committee last week, particularly about the criticism that you have levelled at the committee for some of the evidence? You have made the point very strongly that you do not believe that it was based on an assessment of sufficiently broad evidence, and I note that that has been reported in the newspaper this morning, The Times. You go on to make the point that, because it was only dealing with 1 per cent of Scotland's publicly employed teaching workforce, you feel that it was very biased, really, basically. Do you accept, however, that that was only one part of quite a lot of evidence that we received, particularly in terms of the representations that have been made to us by bodies who represent quite a number of teachers, for example the geographers, the modern studies people, the computing people, plus a number of the teaching unions, and also quite a number of people who have had observations on education, particularly on the curriculum for excellence. Do you think that that comment was a particularly wise one? The first thing that I want to say is that no stage have I used the word biased, so I want that clearly understood by the committee. At no stage have I used the word biased, that was Liz Smith's word, and it's not one that I've used. It's one that's been reported in the press. Pardon? I said I think it's one that's been reported in the press. Well it's not one word that will appear in any communication that I have made, so I don't want it associated with me, and I put that on the record firmly to the committee. Now what I've said is that the committee's reliance on the survey is to me not indicative of taking a balanced view of all of the evidence that's available, given the fact that the education organisations themselves commission feedback from members of the public, from individuals with whom they interact, which provides different perspectives on the performance and the impact of these organisations. For example, on Education Scotland, the surveys that are carried out after inspections, the overwhelming majority of my memory says that it is possibly in excess of 85 per cent of respondents indicate that they felt their school was enhanced as a consequence of the Education Scotland intervention through inspection. That, to me, is counterbalancing evidence that the committee should weigh up in coming to the conclusions that it came to. Mr Swinney, you're obviously not able to be present because of the focus groups that were organised through private sessions. Both myself and Johann Lamont chaired those sessions some three weeks ago. There was very strong representation made to us in these private sessions, which I can't go into the details because of the nature of the private sessions, but they made clear to us once again the depth of feeling, which backs up quite a lot of the evidence that we took, particularly when it came to the formal committee sessions that we had with SQA and Education Scotland. It certainly backs up a lot of the anecdotal evidence that we all receive as MSPs visiting schools just now. Do you accept that there is very strong representation being made to yourself and to Parliament that the delivery of the curriculum for excellence has fundamental problems that need to be addressed? Do you accept that? No. Can you explain on what basis you believe that that's not correct? To assist me in delivering the answer, I would be grateful if Liz Smith would explain to me the basis of the criticism of curriculum for excellence. The point that is being put to us by the groups that I mentioned earlier is that the actual delivery of the curriculum for excellence is confused. You yourself have been a person who has commissioned the abolition of something like 20,000 sheets of the guidance because you rightly thought that it was confusing and not in the best interests of directing teachers. The basic problem for many of the teachers just now is that, to approach the fundamental principles of the curriculum for excellence, which we all agree are good ones, that has got lost because the delivery of the curriculum for excellence has been clouded in considerable difficulty. There is a very strong message that we are getting from, I would say, a very considerable majority of the people who speak to us. Therefore, I am struggling to find a reason as to why you think that that's not correct. We're going to have a difference of opinion about all this because I take a fundamentally different view of this to Liz Smith. I've come into office nine months ago with a very open mind about many of these questions and I've looked carefully at what has happened over the years to get to where we are today. Essentially, there has been a build-up of guidance over a number of years, which has been requested by the education system for it to be put in place. All of the steps that have gone through the discussions around this have been collaborative discussions involving the teaching profession as represented by the professional associations. The education agencies, the government, local authorities, directors of education, professional advisers in academic and curriculum development have all worked collaboratively as part of this process and presiding over the growing volume of guidance that has been available to members of the teaching profession. What I've done since I've come into office has looked very hard at that and required very clear and definitive guidance to be issued to every teacher in the country, which is this guidance. The feedback that I get, some of it is in big formal gatherings. On other occasions, it's when I'm walking around schools and teachers will stop me and tell me that this guidance has helped to clarify the direction of the curriculum. Or, when I've recounted this to the committee before, where I'm standing on the pier at the Tarwart ferry terminal in the western Isles, a teacher came up to me to say that guidance has helped to improve the way in which they can deliver curriculum for excellence. My point is that guidance has grown up at each stage of the development of curriculum for excellence and we have now got to the point where we need to provide the definitive clarity that will assist the teaching profession and I am in the process of delivering that. The next bit that went with us was the delivery of literacy and numeracy benchmarks, which was to give clarity to the teaching profession about what was expected of them at different stages in the journey of young people through the education system. That has, in my opinion, generally been well received by the teaching profession. It's supported by the professional associations and is viewed to be having an effect on the system. Having listened to the professional associations, I'm going to issue benchmarks that will relate to other areas of the curriculum beyond literacy and numeracy before the end of March. I have discussed with the professional associations to make sure that there is absolute clarity for the teaching profession about what they are expected to deliver. Over the years, a number of steps have been taken to provide the guidance that the profession was looking for and we are now in the process of focusing that guidance in the most effective way that we can. The final thing is to talk about the view of the OECD, which concluded in its statement on 15 December 2016 that we applaud Scotland for having the foresight and patience to put such an ambitious reformist curriculum for excellence in place. We hope that our OECD review will help to ensure that it will live up to its full potential and realise excellence and equity right across Scotland. The national improvement framework over which I preside is designed to deliver against that expectation of the OECD review that the curriculum for action should live up to its full potential. Cabinet Secretary, my final point on this. If that's all true, you make your assertion in paragraph 3 on page 2 of the letter that you write to us that you don't understand why members of this committee are unclear about the lines of responsibility for decisions on all matters pertaining to national education policy. You say that Buck stops with you. I think that we all understand that. You say that your colleague Fiona Robertson made it very clear to us about how decisions are made. I have to tell you, Cabinet Secretary, and I hope that I speak for many members around the table. We found it incredibly difficult to get out of the education agencies exactly who makes a decision on what basis and who is finally responsible for that decision. My colleague Tavish Scott, who might say a bit more about that, pointed quite rightly to the fact that, for nine years, there has been a curriculum for excellence board. It has been very difficult indeed to get any understanding as to how decisions were made on what basis and who was ultimately responsible for it. Is that not the basic problem about the curriculum for excellence just now? No, I don't think that it's the problem. The Scottish education is a collaborative endeavour. Forgive me if I'm repeating things that I've said to the committee over the times that I've been here, but I speak on these subjects all the time. If I want to have a discussion about charting a way forward in Scottish education, I will not be able to have—this would be—a smallish gathering. I don't think that I would get away with a gathering as small as this because of the number of stakeholders that need to be assembled around the table. Between professional associations, local authorities, specialist directors of education, local authority chief executives, professional advisers, our agencies, they've all got to be around the table. Let's take the assessment and qualifications group around that table. I chair it, and I'm only chairing it because I want to get some movement on this as quickly as possible. I chair it. The Government's there, Education Scotland's there, the SQ is there, the EIS, the SSTA, the NESUWT, the School Leaders Scotland, academic advisers from the University of Glasgow, the University of Strathclyde, ADES, parents, the National Parent Forum for Scotland, the colleges. I actually wasn't counting what I went around my fingers. I think I was at 17 there. The point is, who takes responsibility for the decisions? Well, I'm coming to that. That's my explanation. There are many, many stakeholders that have to be brought together, but my letter couldn't be clearer. I am accountable to the First Minister and to the Scottish Parliament for those decisions. Ultimately, I carry responsibility for this, and I sit here and accept that responsibility and articulate it. But the fact that I, you know, it may suit Lismith's narrative every so often to suggest that I am a man of immense power that can dictate this, that and the next thing to happen around the country, I've got to take a lot of people with me in coming to the conclusions and the decisions that arrive at. Because it is not, this is not anything other than a collaborative endeavour. Now, ultimately, some decisions have to be taken when not everybody is in agreement. And sometimes this committee will get some of the swell from that. It will hear from people who don't agree with the decisions that have been taken. But, you know, in the committee's evidence paper that is circulated for today, at one point, the committee cites one headteacher saying that you should do eight qualifications at nat five. And the next paragraph cites a headteacher saying that you should do six at nat five. Now, in two, and I don't say this to be critical of the committee, the committee is simply marshalling the fact that there's a wide variety of different views about what to do. In my old days in France, you know, once you allocated the money, you allocated the money, and you explained that was it, you just, that was it. But here, there is a debate, a necessary debate about all range of questions. So there will be a lot of debate, there will be a lot of different opinions, but ultimately we have to navigate a way through it. Now, curriculum for excellence in its original intention, and this comes back to some of what I said to Mr Greer earlier on today. Curriculum for excellence was not designed to be a curriculum that was delivered uniformly in every school in the country in the same way that is undertaken. And if Liz Smith was a supporter of the principles of curriculum for excellence, which she's just told me that she is, then she accepts that point, that it's not delivered in the same fashion. So there's going to be variation, there will be difference, but fundamentally curriculum for excellence is driven by the work that goes on in every school to achieve the four capacities of successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. Mr Swinney, my point is not that of course there will be debate, and of course you have to make difficult decisions that Government ministers do. The point is, what we would like to know as a committee is, when a decision is made, on what basis was it made, and through what process in the management board was the decision taken, and if there is a problem, if there's a wealth of teachers that are concerned about that, we've got unions telling us that they'll rather go to the minister than go to the curriculum for excellence board. That's the problem we've got, is that the lines of responsibility are blurred. And when it comes down to a body of opinion where people are obviously not entirely happy with the curriculum for excellence, it's very difficult to see the way through as to how to resolve it. That's my point. Let's take, for example, the issue on the changes to the national qualifications that are currently under way. The assessment and qualifications group considered this issue in detail round the table. We got to a point in that discussion where a number of papers haven't been put to us, where there was a conclusion that the removal of unit assessment was the right thing to do at that five and higher. That paper and its contents were put to the curriculum for excellence management board who agreed those provisions. There's an example, and I accepted the view of the curriculum for excellence management board, and that's being implemented. There's an illustration of how a decision is taken. Colleagues, come in. We'll move on to Tavish. Thank you very much, convener. This morning, the Times is reporting that you judge our paper to be unbalanced. Is that factually out? I just want to be very clear about terminology, so I do not put words in your mouth. It's unbalanced, the correct phrase. That's the word that I've used in my letteries. Thank you. Can I just clarify whether you're concerned about the committee being unbalanced in relation to our recommendations on Education Scotland and the SQA, or is it wider than that? My view is in your—let me just, for the avoidance of the—let me just have the words in front of me. I'm referring specifically to the areas in connection with the SQA and Education Scotland. It's sort of quite important to clarify that. Can I just take you to the third page of your letter to the committee in which you say at the top paragraph, of course, separate unique responsibilities for implementation of CFE reside with the delivery bodies and the board, by which I presume that to be the curriculum for excellence management board, has played a key role in holding these organisations, which I take to be Education Scotland and the SQA, to account for those responsibilities? Would you be able to give the committee some examples of exactly that, because that's what we're trying to tease out in the meeting that we had on the 18th of January? Essentially, the management board, for example, would be taking a decision of a strategic nature—let's take the live one—to remove the unit's assessment. Essentially, the management board would say, well, we've taken that decision. We now want to see that implemented by the Scottish Qualifications Authority and to make sure that's done in a fashion that satisfies the objectives of the curriculum for excellence management board. The curriculum for excellence management board must be mindful of the status of the SQA in being able to take its own internal processes and decide its resourcing requirements and all the rest of it, but fundamentally, the management board is looking to the SQA to deliver on the policy choice that's been made. Why did Larry Flanagan say again in his evidence to us that the teacher workload issues were only addressed when he and his union went direct to ministers, one of your predecessors, despite many discussions at the management board? In other words, they felt they got nowhere at the management board and had to take it offline directly to the minister. That's a question for Mr Flanagan. I can't interpret his comments in that respect. It's not proper for me to do so. His evidence, Mr Swinney, was that things started to happen with your predecessor, Mr Russell, when the EIS spoke to Mr Russell and he and Mr Russell responded positively to that, but they got nowhere when they raised it time and time again in the management board. I can't comment on Mr Flanagan's behalf for something like that. I think that's something that you'd be based place to put to Mr Flanagan. We did, and his evidence, which you will have read, is on the record. Similarly, he said that in relation to the SQA and to Education Scotland, they would publish guidance in Education Scotland's case, or with the SQA, new exam material was regularly sent to schools without the involvement or joined up communication involving the management board. We were under the impression of the management board was there to manage the process of implementing curriculum for excellence, and the evidence we got just did not work effectively. That is what the structure is designed to achieve, to ensure that there is a cohesive approach to the implementation of all of these questions. In accordance with the implementation plan, all organisations had signed up to it as part of the implementation of curriculum for excellence. Do you accept that the committee found legitimate areas of concern as to where the management board hadn't functioned as any of us would understand a management board to function in respect of implementing something so fundamentally important as curriculum for excellence? Fundamentally, the management board has to bring together the different and disparate views of organisations involved in the process. Not everybody is going to be comfortable with every single bit of detail. There are differences of view around the management board, and ultimately a management board will have to come to a conclusion about how to proceed. It is pretty fundamental, the publication of the enormous amount of guidance that we have given you credit for, and many of us across politics have given you credit for tackling from September of last year onwards. The enormous amount that Liz Smith referred to grew and grew and grew during the period. You will rightly say back to me, teachers in many cases were asking for that, but it grew and grew and grew. The evidence that we got was that at no time did we look at that and say, gosh, more and more is coming, so we need to take some off at the bottom end to give teachers some space to teach it. It is interesting that I have taken steps to reduce the volume of materials there. I received some very direct criticism from some members of the teaching profession direct to me about some of the stuff that had been removed. The challenge here is to navigate our way through providing the clarity that is required for the teaching profession, but also remembering that one of the key objectives of curriculum for excellence is to empower the teaching profession to make their own judgments about how best to deliver the curriculum in the settings in which they are operating. That is indeed true, so that reinforces the OECD's finding that you have already cited this morning and cited many times in the past from the report of 2015, which I reread last night, when they said that the complexity of the layers and dimensions when all put together raises its own questions about how comprehensible is the curriculum for excellence. That was their finding on page 44 of the 2015 report. What did the management board do about that fundamental finding about the complexity teachers are facing? What the management board was doing was essentially responding to the demand for guidance that was emerging from the profession at different stages in the journey. What I have done is I have established a very clear focus within the guidance that is available about what should structure the decision making that is undertaken by teachers. If we take, for example, some of the framework of curriculum for excellence for experiences and outcomes in some circumstances, that was being interpreted as being a tick box exercise that literally every single experience and outcome had to be proven to be delivered to every pupil in the country. That is a colossal bureaucratic exercise, total nonsense, but that was allowed to emerge through local practice. What I have tried to do with the guidance is to give the clarity that says experiences and outcomes, for example, are the context of learning, but what we need to be satisfied by, which will be delivered by the benchmarks, is that these are the levels that we expect young people to reach, and teachers should be confident of getting young people to those levels. I absolutely accept that. I thought that it is important on the record to remember that there were 1,820 experiences and outcomes across 1,488 curriculum areas, so that again was the OECD's findings. I appreciate the numbers that Mr Scott cites, but what that is doing is applying that to the whole curriculum over all the subject areas, over all the years involved. I have been a wee bit round the houses with Mr Scott before about benchmarks, for example, where I think Mr Scott was brandishing a document in Parliament of the volume of benchmarks. I have never brandished anything. Waving is maybe a slightly less pejorative remark, but Mr Scott was waving a document at me, which was a vast volume of benchmarks. Yes, they are the benchmarks for the whole system, but for a teacher dealing with an individual classroom, only a fraction of those benchmarks are relevant. First, we wave big documents around. There are only parts of them that, from time to time, can be relevant at one particular moment in the education system. I will perish the thought that I wave any more, but let me finish with two final points. You mentioned to that Smith that you were going to introduce new benchmarks. I am sure that you will not brandish them. I am sure that you will introduce them before the end of the march. Can we have an assurance that those new benchmarks will replace some of the existing benchmarks guidance of information for want of a better expression that is currently in front of teachers in those specific curriculum areas that you are about to introduce? There is an exercise that is very close to completion, which is looking at putting in place the clarity of what the teaching profession is expected to achieve in the areas outwith literacy and numeracy that we have already published. Those are designed to give the clarity that will be required. In the chief inspector of education's circular to practitioners, he makes it clear that the two key resources that teachers should use to plan learning teaching and assessment are experiences and outcomes and benchmarks. That is the essential clarity that all members of the teaching profession will require. Finally, can I relate to one of the other paragraphs in our report that we published earlier in relation to teachers themselves, when the committee said that teachers may feel inhibited from expressing critical and independent views as suggested by the Royal Society of Edinburgh? The committee has determined that it should have access to the candid views of teachers and front-line staff who are valuable contributions to make to its scrutiny. I hope that you might share not just my but I suspect the committee's concerns about the fact that we did have to ask for teachers to come forward, and many said that they would only do that anonymously in giving evidence to our committee. That alone says that there is something quite wrong with the culture of teaching across Scotland. Would you at least accept that we have some issues to address if that is the way that we should talk to teachers? I want to have an empowered teaching profession. I can cite to the committee a regular flow of communication that I receive directly from teachers, with their names on it, directly to me as education secretary, often through my MSP in Edinburgh. I get lots of communication from teachers, and yes, some of it is critical of decisions that have been taken because there are different views about what is the right step to take forward. I want to have an empowered profession. I have just put in place pupil equity funding, which I think will be seen in a few years' time as being one of the most empowering things that we have done for the teaching profession to give greater scope and leadership into the profession. I hear directly from teachers. I speak to teachers face-to-face without management present when I'm in visiting schools. I know the teachers' names. They speak to me very freely about issues. Yes, there are challenging conversations within that because there are differences of view about what are the right steps to take forward and educate. I think it's about education Scotland on the SQA. I think what we're getting is that teachers were frightened to put their names to their concerns about the operation of the flangos that they have to deal with. That was, I think, the main point we picked up as a committee. I don't see any justification for that whatsoever. We should have curriculum for excellence is designed to create an empowered profession, and that's what I wanted to do. Fulton, you've got a supplementary question. Actually, I'd hinted for the supplementary question before Tavish's last point, but it's kind of similar to that. Given the way of opinion that the committee did here and given that, I think, runs counter to what I experience in my local schools and what the cabinet secretary is saying that he also experiences, does the cabinet secretary think it's possible that the committee has become a forum for those most disinheartened with the process? I think we could all accept as politicians, particularly that we're more likely to get responses from people that are critical than those who are positive and think things that are going well. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would think that that's been a possibility, and if it is, what could be done within education Scotland, the SQA, and a local authority level so that those people's voices are heard more locally and that they're feeling they're getting a chance to effect change? I'll make the point in my response to the committee, convener, that I expect the highest standards of all public bodies contributing to the education skills agenda within Scotland, and I expect the SQA and education Scotland to engage with the teaching profession and to take the views and the feedback seriously. That's my position and I want us to have an open dialogue about those points. Of course, there will come a point where we have to come to decisions and not everybody's going to like all those decisions. I'd like to return to the structures, particularly curriculum for excellence management board. It's fair to say that the committee has had some questions around that, so I'd like to ask you about the design of the curriculum and the responsibility for monitoring how successfully implementation is taking place. How do you see the respective responsibilities of yourself as cabinet secretary, curriculum for excellence management board, the SQA and education Scotland in terms of those key issues? Let me take it in reverse. The Scottish Qualifications Authority has got a very specific responsibility, which in my view is twofold. One is to preside over an authoritative certification and examination process in Scotland for our qualifications, and secondly to contribute towards the wider educational process in Scotland. Education Scotland has got the responsibility to carry out the inspections that are required by statute and its statutory role in that respect, and it has to provide me with advice on educational issues and educational practice, and then it has to contribute to the general education debate and discussion. The curriculum for excellence management board was created with a responsibility to essentially coordinate the implementation of curriculum for excellence over a number of years gestation, and it would obviously draw on the input of the SQA and education Scotland, but as I have rehearsed to answer to Liz Smith a moment ago to draw on the input of a whole range of other stakeholders as part of the process. Ultimately, the curriculum for excellence management board would give the education secretary advice, guidance and recommendations, and ultimately the responsibility to rest with the education secretary. For completeness, I should have said this in my earlier answers. I have already told the committee that I am looking at whether or not those arrangements remain appropriate on an on-going basis, and I will consider that as part of the governance review. I appreciate that fact. One of the issues that we identified and were asking about is the design of the qualification system and how well it is integrated with the broad general education, particularly the 160 hours and the requirements that it places on schools and what that meant in terms of the breadth of subjects that pupils were able to take. The reality of those impacts to one side, those responsibilities in terms of the design, the hours that are required for those qualifications and, importantly, the impact on what that means in terms of breadth. Whose responsibility is that breadth and the deliverability? This is not going to be a short answer. No, I didn't expect it to be. He's incited a very long answer. If the committee will be patient with me, I'll try and work, because Mr Johnson's point is an entirely valid point, and I want to try to do it justice. The assumption of curriculum for excellence is that the broad general education will deliver capability and capacity of young people to a certain level, and essentially the benchmarks that I am now going to put in place for at the end of this month will make that absolute crystal clear across all subject areas. So, if there's any doubt around the country about what is expected of the broad general education to establish as the competence of a young person, that'll be clarified beyond per adventure in the course of this month. Young people then move into the senior phase, and the design of qualifications essentially reflects assumptions of what's been acquired as the knowledge of young people in the broad general education, and then the specifics of what they're required to do in the senior phase. Mr Johnson raises the 160 hours, which I think is perfectly entitled to raise it, but I think that the 160 hours is the SQA assessment of how many hours a student needs to do to complete a qualification. I think that the danger of how that's been interpreted is that everyone takes the view that the clock of the 160 hours starts at the end of the broad general education, when in fact logically there must be capacities and capabilities that have been acquired during the broad general education that act as foundations to what will then contribute to elements of the senior phase and the 160 hours, if I call it that. I think that that has an effect on some of the planning that schools undertake as to what are the choices and the approaches that young people take, and we've got different models that exist around the country. Fundamentally, schools are free to choose those different models, although on occasions I have been questioned about whether or not it would be appropriate for the Government to specify how many subject choices should be there in whatever circumstances. Fundamentally, the senior phase has got to be built on the capacities and capabilities that have been acquired in the broad general education and decisions taken at school level about how that should be applied, given the interests and perspectives of young people. That actually helpfully anticipates what my follow-up question was going to be. I think that there are two things that have been reported to us, and I'm far from claiming that this is what happens everywhere, but certainly they have been made regarding S3 and what happens and consequences thereafter. I think that the point that you alluded to is that some schools are starting to teach national 4-5 in S3 in order to get through the 160 hours. It would be interesting to know, based on the answer, if you're just given whether or not that's a valid thing to do. Mr Johnson raised an interesting point, but I want to be absolutely crystal clear what I said. What I'm saying is that, within the broad general education, there will be elements of learning that will contribute towards national 4, as opposed to schools that should be teaching national 4 in S3. That's a helpful clarification, and I think that answers that point. The other issue that has been flagged in our work is that, in some instances in some schools, in order to timetable subjects, they have composite classes for a national 4 or 5 and, indeed, higher are being taught in a single class. Would you agree with me that that is a signal that there may be design issues and deliverability issues that require further investigation, and would you agree with me that that doesn't sound like an ideal way of teaching any of those qualifications, let alone a subject in its entirety? I think that some of the judgment about that, and I'd be happy to explore further detail about that, but I think that some of the judgment about that will relate to what's the pupil numbers and the extent to which distinctive classes can be put in place for distinctive cohorts, and that school size and rurality may have an effect on some of that into the bargain. Fundamentally, teachers will be accustomed to and equipped to teach at multiple levels, and I certainly have seen successful practice in which that can be deployed, but I'm happy to explore whether there's a systemic issue that lies at the heart of that question. In terms of responsibility for those issues, in terms of how easily the qualifications are to deliver within the timescale set out, ultimately, is that the curriculum for excellence management board's responsibility, and where does that integration and responsibility lie in your view with that structure that you outlined at the beginning? Ultimately, I come back to Mr Johnson's original question to me, which was a who does what question. On the issues around the certification and authority of qualifications, that is the exclusive responsibility of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The management board doesn't supervise the qualification decisions of the SQA on individual candidates. That is the statutory duty of the SQA, and nobody, not even a minister, can interfere in that process. When I answered Mr Johnson in his original question, I said that the SQA had a responsibility to undertake that certification and authorisation process within the qualifications, but they also had a role to contribute towards the wider educational discussion. Let me give a practical example of that. In formulating the benchmarks that will be issued in the course of this month, I've said to the chief executive of Education Scotland and the chief executive of the SQA, I won't learn to be, if I'm allowed to use the analogy, not a cigarette paper between the judgment of the SQA about what they are expecting candidates to be able to achieve at the end of the broad general education and what Education Scotland puts into those benchmarks. They must have the same view about what must be the capacity and capability of candidates at the end of the broad general education. That is an example of how those organisations need to work intimately together to make sure that the right conclusion is arrived at. I'm sure that the cabinet secretary would agree with me that breadth is one of the enduring qualities of the Scottish education system and something that should be maintained. Again, breadth is one of those things that there are a lot of indicators that you could point to. One bit of evidence that I've looked at is the number of students sitting and passing modern language qualifications in seniors. There's been a quite precipitous drop, falls of around over 40 per cent in French and German. Does he think that warrants further investigation into what's going on there? Is that something he's concerned about? Indeed, is breadth something generally that he's taking active consideration to look at what the picture is, given the changes in the education system over recent years? Breth is fundamental. I agree with that. That's why the broad general education is what it is within Curriculum for Excellence to provide that breadth for every learner in Scotland. When it then comes into the senior phase and the point that Mr Johnson raises about qualifications, we will have different patterns of performance on particular subjects. We need to explore, with Mr Johnson's sites, modern languages, challenges on STEM as well. We have to explore where we are not getting sufficient candidates emerging to meet the needs of our society. Of course, we will look at these questions and intervene to try to boost interest and participation as effective as we can. On the Curriculum for Excellence management board, we found in our evidence session on that that, in its history, it had never been independently evaluated, its performance had never been assessed. I was wondering why that was the case. When you listed the various organisations that are involved in the management board and it's fantastic to have teachers, unions and parents in particular represented, why is there no direct learner representation? That's a pretty fair comment. We'll address that. On the question of independent evaluation, the Government invited the OECD, who have a global credibility and reputation for examining education systems. They came in and looked at Curriculum for Excellence. That was a really timely intervention because what the OECD did was essentially say, I think it's a report of two halves, one half said, you've undertaken bold, world-leading curriculum reform and you've done it well. You've got to make sure that it now is embedded effectively and it succeeds in fulfilling the potential of all learners in Scotland. That's why we formulated the national improvement framework. It's what guides the fulfilment of the expectations of the OECD review of what are guiding my priorities as education secretary. That's interesting but it's not an answer to the question that I asked about the Curriculum for Excellence Managed Board, its structure, its performance being independently assessed. That was not the purpose of the OECD report. It touched on that but that was not what it was looking at. The OECD review looked at the Curriculum for Excellence Managed Board and said that I'm pretty sure I would be able to find a quote here but there's a quote from the OECD in its 2015 review. I recognise that this has been the right approach, noting that the CFE management board has been well fitted to the task of implementing CFE as a Scotland-wide curriculum programme. That task required consensus and managing processes so the implementation, including that of assessment and qualifications, would happen as smoothly as possible, page 104 of the OECD report. The Managed Board has had that independent assessment as part of that process and there was a whole chapter in the OECD report about governance and decision making. That's all been subject to evaluation but I come back to the point that I made to Mr Johnson that I'm looking at whether in terms of what the OECD report throws up to us as the challenges that lie ahead as to what the right governance arrangements are for handling that. I am a bit disappointed that the cabinet secretary has responded to what I thought was a very measured report by the committee. In fact, I would commend the convener on doing so well to bring forward what was a unanimous view of this committee and was a reflection of our concerns. I would like to highlight why I'm disappointed. The chair of the CFE management board, Fiona Robertson, made this very clear to you at the evidence session in January. There are no grounds for members of the committee to be unclear at this point. I said to you in a classroom, if you as a teacher said to a child, look, I've made this clear to you. There are no grounds for you not understanding. You would quite rightly be hunted. It just seems to me that if this committee unanimously are saying that there are concerns, I think that we would expect the cabinet secretary to reflect on that. I don't think that people are saying that they're not in favour of curriculum for excellence. I think that people are saying that we're concerned about the way it's being implemented. I hear what you say about disagreements. I wonder what you think of the motivations of teachers who took the time to contact this committee to highlight their concerns. It can't possibly be that they've all lost the argument and therefore in some kind of curmudgeonly way feel obliged to pursue that argument through the committee. What do you think are the motivations of the overwhelming number of people who contacted us with their serious professional concerns? I said to Tavish Scott that I want to have an empowered profession that contributes to a debate about education, but what we need to do is to take a consider the approach about all of those issues to make sure that we are taking steps to ensure the effective delivery of curriculum for excellence. Do you recognise that there is an issue that was felt with the whole of the committee that the evidence that we've got was telling us something? I'm assuming that you would want to distance yourself from the views of SQA, but basically what they were saying was, you know what some of these people like, they don't like change, they prefer things to be done the way they were before. As I pointed out at the time, I was involved in teaching at the point where there was a transformation around one and done and standard race, and of course there were people who didn't want to change, but the vast majority of people then, as now, recognised the change and when they're raising its concerns is because there are problems in them professionally delivering. Do you accept that this characterisation of the concerns of people who have highlighted those matters to us as being the usual suspects who would do that anyway is simply unfair? If you accept that that is unfair, how do you respond in a serious way to those genuine concerns that people are highlighting, as opposed to, frankly, rather arathmetical view, which says, well, they don't really represent anybody, it's only 1 per cent? In my letter I say to the committee, whilst I welcome views from anyone involved in Scotland's education system and will always pay close attention to constructive criticism, I believe the points advanced by the committee on the performance of the SQA and Education Scotland in particular are not based on an assessment of a sufficiently broad evidence base. My point is that there is other evidence that the committee had at its disposal, which emerges from the dialogue that both of those organisations have conducted independently with other individuals and bodies, which would counterbalance some of that evidence that has emerged in the dialogue with the committee. I listen carefully to the teaching profession, the length and breadth of the country. I listen to the profession almost on a daily basis about issues that I get communicated with on a daily basis. I had an email last night from a head teacher raising issues with me, which I replied to personally on my email account last night to explore some of those issues. I take those points very seriously, but what I was inviting the committee to do was to reflect on a broader evidence base than what the committee had and dwelt on informing its report. I am happy to do that, but I think that a mindset of those who say that people express concerns have simply lost the argument that a curmudgeon says equally. I am not saying that you do, but I would actually think— I have just read out my view on the record about how I think we should consider criticism from individuals and to address it. I urge you not to explain a way in which, frankly, counting up the number of teachers who sent in comments, as against all the teaching profession, quite rightly accepted the evidence of enable an NUSUWT earlier in relation to additional support needs. I think that, frankly, you should do that in this regard as well. For completeness, convener, I will go on to read more of my letter because I highlighted the fact that SPICE—what I was talking about was the survey that the committee undertook. SPICE said that the description by the survey by SPICE is not based on a random sample, so it may not be representative of the general population. I am saying to you that, if you get that amount of response and evidence, do not explain a way, try to understand it. If I can maybe move on to a couple of other points, you talked about how basically the sign-up across—we have had some conversations in the past in this committee—sign-up to curriculum for excellence, which I think is true. There are concerns about the way that it is implemented. Can you explain to me who decided that it would be a good idea not to have an external exam in S4 for national four? If I had known that at the point where I was signing up for curriculum for excellence, I would not have supported it. We never got any clarity from Education Scotland of the SQA about who's responsibility this was. Indeed, when we pressed them, we were saying, well, this is a conversation that Scotland has to have. Who decided it and will you look again at the consequences of that decision around motivation for some young people in fourth year, particularly given that their qualification not only is not externally assessed but is assessed internally in a past fuel basis? Ministers decided that there would be no external examination in that four. In my view, there are some sign-up—not in my view—the assessment national qualifications group under my chairmanship have looked at the issues around national four because there is, I think, a question of the value and the esteam that is placed in national four. That is not what it should be and that is therefore not fair to the learners that are acquiring national four. To take John Lamont's point, whether the answer to that is an external examination is a point on which there is divided opinion? It is because you will remember certification for all and significance of that. That was a massive step forward in terms of valuing and respecting young people. You say that ministers made that decision rather than the curriculum for excellence management board? It was based on advice from the qualifications group. I am not quite sure. I will maybe explore with you separately on that question. The last issue that I wanted to raise with you in relation to another recommendation that was made by the committee in promise community is the last one. It is on the question of SDS ensuring that its programmes are accessible and attractive to all young people. This question about equal access, disproportionate apprenticeships going to young men rather than to young women, concerns about accessibility for people with disabilities and so on. Your response says that equality impact assessments are conducted in all of the SDS programmes. Equality impact assessments are also undertaken in their web services to ensure that they meet the needs of each user. Would you accept that individual programmes could be individually assessed as being of equal access but if you do not look across the board at programmes in terms of their impact, you may miss the fact that in fact disproportionately few women, people with disabilities, access these programmes? That is a fair comment. The whole issue of ensuring that there are opportunities available for young people to address their needs and their capabilities, particularly given the growing significance of modern apprenticeships and the role that they perform within the opportunities that are available for young people. That is an issue that we need to take greater account of. Just before we finish off, two things I suppose. One is that in relation to your letter. The reason why we put so much store by what the teachers had said is that the meeting that Ross Greer and I had with teachers in person tallied almost exactly with the survey results and with anonymous responses. It seemed to say that those numbers said something. If it had just been anonymous responses, it would have had a different look at it. It tied in almost exactly with us and it was mainly all around SQA. I think that the criticism that the SQA got in the report was justified. However, I do not agree with Liz Smith's position that it seems that CFE is failing. We did talk about not reaching a level of maturity that we hoped to have at this stage. I do not know what your view is, but I thought that the results yesterday on delivery of the curriculum fractions has failed. I did not say that the curriculum fractions failed. There is some unanimity that we have some work to do there, but the outcomes that were shown yesterday, for example, must mean that the curriculum for excellence is working in some way. I ask a very brief point on that question. The phrase that Gleiner uses is that we are not quite reached that level of maturity yet. Do you think that there should be a revisiting of the budgeting round delivery of the curriculum for excellence because the budgets have been cut on the basis that has reached a level of maturity? Do you wonder if that is something that you would also look at? I think that the guidance that I am taking on this is the assessment by the OECD. The OECD did not say to us that there is nothing to do here. The OECD was very clear with us about the challenges that remain around the fulfilment of curriculum for excellence and the maximisation of its potential. I am very focused. That is what the national improvement framework is all about. It is about learning from the OECD report and putting that into practice. One of the great things about where we are just now is that the national improvement framework, in my view, has got real grip in the education system. I am seeing it being applied in schools that are length and breadth of the country, with head teachers undertaking their planning with their school and parental community based on what they can achieve by following the methodology of the national improvement framework. I am taking a lot of heart from that, because in a relatively short space in time, as a planning tool, that has got the education system focused on what we need it to be focused on, which is on improving performance. I think that there are many aspects of our current educational performance that are really strong. The data that you talked about yesterday, convener, is very encouraging data about the improvements and positive destinations that are taking place, the level of qualifications that have been achieved, the narrowing of the attainment gap that is taking place over the achievement of qualifications. All of those are very encouraging trends within Scottish education, but they neither support a narrative that says everything is a disaster nor do they support a narrative that says everything in the garden is rosy, which is why I am focused on an improvement agenda.