³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Connect is a national organisation that represents parents and parents groups throughout Scotland. We have had wide discussions with it and it is keen to provide the secretariat function for the group. Obviously, we will reach out well beyond one individual group.

Connect is well aware of the need to engage as widely as possible, but it would provide the right kind of services and focus. In essence, it is an engagement group. It is a group of people who are involved in trying to bring others to the table, and it is well suited to doing the work to ensure that we have a representative discussion.

I thank Bob Doris for his reflection about the cross-over between Meghan Gallacher’s positions and about recognising the absence. It is a point well made, which should perhaps have been made in my own case. However, I focused on the gap in the initial pitch, if I can put it that way.

The reform agenda, which I have already mentioned, is absolutely critical. We should not underestimate the scale of the potential changes that the Government could bring to the table. We are kicking off a national conversation that has been stimulated by Ken Muir’s report, and it is vital that families are involved in that. It is vital not only that their role as educators is recognised and supported in that process, but that families have faith in and buy in to the education system, understanding its role and what impact the changes will have on them and on young people in years to come.

It is about making sure that there is a space in which to have the formal engagement. At times, there is an absence of parental voice in some of the conversations that we have in Parliament on the specifics of the reform agenda. I am reflecting more on that even during this conversation. The Education, Children and Young People Committee commonly—and rightly—engages trade unionists, youth voices from the Scottish Youth Parliament and other learners. We engage on that basis, but we seldom have structured or outreach conversations with families specifically about how they are involved in education and about the impact that things will have. Even considering how we ask the Parliament to better reflect those voices could be critical. If we are going to make the reform agenda work, doing that work will be absolutely central.

µþ³Ü³Ù—

You think that colleges and universities should make up the gap.

With respect, the feedback that I have had shows that gaps definitely exist, and, as we have said, your methodology recognises that gaps exist, but I am not sure that I am hearing where you think those gaps should be made up. For example, should the college or the university make up for the lost learning of someone who has left school and gone somewhere else?

The witnesses might have picked up on the session that we had with Education Scotland prior to the summer recess, in which senior officials told the committee that the organisation was not being scrapped. I think that it is fair to say that the Scottish Government has been very clear on that issue and on the SQA’s status. What will be different about Scotland’s qualifications agency after the process is completed?

On that point, Ken Muir’s report was quite clear in recommending the separation of awarding functions from accreditation and regulation. Do you think that separation, which is a clear recommendation, will be taken forward?

There are currently four non-executive directors in addition to the board members, which makes a total of 11, the majority of whom—six—are employees of the SQA.

I suppose that where I am going with this is that members of the committee and external organisations have expressed concern that—just as happened with Education Scotland—we are looking at a rebrand rather than at a replacement or a substantive reform.

µþ³Ü³Ù—if I may, please—in contrast with much of your submission to the committee and what we have heard, the Government has concluded that the organisation has failed in recent years, otherwise it would not be scrapping it.

The question now is what replaces the organisation. It strikes me that, if the system is driven by the management of the existing organisation—we are being told by some that their organisations are not even being scrapped—can we really have faith that this reform process is based on the needs of the future? Should external voices not be being heard? Should users not be represented in the process? Should such people not make the decisions, rather than the six SQA managers—including you, Mr Baxter—who are listed on my piece of paper?

The committee would recognise the challenge of undertaking both functions at the same time. My answer to that is to ask why things are taking quite so long, with a transition process taking years and a national conversation after the conclusion of a qualifications review. That exacerbates the problem. The—