���˿���

I understand that Michael Marra has received from the SQA a list of the areas of policy that still need an EQIA. I urge caution. He has a list of the policy headings; however, I hope to reassure the committee. I have spoken directly to the chief examiner on the issue, and discussions have been on-going between the SQA and my officials. I repeat that I have had an assurance that nothing that is outstanding has implications for the awards that have been given over the past two years. This is about historical practices and policies. I have sought, and been given, the reassurance that the types of policy for which EQIAs remain outstanding have not had any implications for awards.

There are a number of areas for which there must be a signed legal agreement between an organisation and the commission; there is confidentiality about what can be publicised. Again, my understanding is that the SQA sought and got agreement from the commission that the list could be published in an attempt at reassurance that it is being as transparent as possible while abiding by the legal agreement.

I appreciate where Mr Marra is coming from, and I would wish that the SQA could say more. It has to seek agreement from the commission in order to be able to make areas public. It is not a comfortable position for the SQA either, because I think that it might wish to be able to reassure people more than is possible. It has tried to do so through getting the list and making it available to Mr Marra.

I understand that the Deputy First Minister will make a statement to Parliament, so I refer the committee to that statement and the chance to ask questions about the matter then, as I have not had the opportunity to analyse what has been made public while I have been at committee.

The evidence on face coverings is considered by our sub-group that looks at all the mitigation measures that are part of our Covid strategy. That evidence is regularly reviewed; the sub-group met yesterday and I await its updated suggestions, which we will discuss at the Covid-19 education recovery group. The sub-group considers the four harms approach, as we do in relation to all aspects of the direct impact of Covid, indirect health issues and issues around health and wellbeing. It is the sub-group’s role to provide advice on that basis and I am sure that I will receive advice from it that we will discuss tomorrow at CERG.

It is important that we have the correct data. That enables teachers to make informed judgements about how well pupils are progressing and headteachers to assess what is happening in their schools. That data is also useful to local authorities. It is important that the Government has the information to enable it to see whether there is any concern about the variation in outcomes for children. It is important that we gather data so that we can ensure that every child, regardless of where they are in Scotland, has the right opportunities and that there is not variation in outcomes.

To be clear, we collect evidence about curriculum for excellence levels. We do not publish the results of the standardised assessments. Those are two very different things. What matters is the data that is being collected, what it is used for and how useful it is to different parts of the system. There is nothing in the OECD report to say that we should not collect data nationally. The challenge that the OECD has given us is to consider whether we are collecting the right data and doing the right things with it. There is a distinction between the standardised assessments and the data that we collect at a national level and how we use that.

Yes.

You may say that it has been criticised widely but, in its 2015 review of education in Scotland, the OECD said that the sample approach of the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy did not give national agencies enough evidence.

The OECD has told us in the past that sampling does not provide the right evidence to allow national agencies to take the right decisions on the right course of action. There is a balance to strike on sampling and the type of sample data that we collect. We continue to participate in the largest international survey—the programme for international student assessment, or PISA—but we have to think carefully about whether sampling provided us with the information that was required. In 2015, the OECD said:

“light sampling of literacy and numeracy at the national level has not provided sufficient evidence for other stakeholders to use in their own evaluative activities or for national agencies to identify with confidence the areas of strength in the years of the Broad General Education across the four capacities of CfE. Nor has it allowed identification of those aspects or localities where intervention might be needed.”

That is a direct quote from the OECD saying that we should be cautious about the use of sampling. There has to be some use of sampling and some use of census.

It is important that we have the information that we use on curriculum for excellence levels on a pupil-by-pupil basis so that teachers, schools and national agencies know what is happening in our schools. If we did not have that, it would be exceptionally difficult at a national level—and even, I suggest, at a local government level—to make the correct decisions about where more support might be required, such as more staffing, additional funding or an additional initiative for a school. It would be difficult to do that if we did not have the data at the level at which we are producing it.

There must be a balance. I am absolutely conscious of the fact that there is a variety of views on the use of sample data and census data. As we respond to the OECD survey, we will, of course, consider very carefully the recommendations that the OECD has given us in the most recent report—the quote that I read out was from a previous report. I am not saying that we should do nothing on data and that I take a fixed position on absolutely everything to do with it. We should always challenge ourselves to ensure that we collect the right data in the right way and that it is used effectively.

I genuinely do not think that anyone who has followed what I have done since I came into this portfolio would suggest that I have given up on reform. It has been a busy time for reform in the education system.

Previous drafts of the education paper that was published yesterday were shared among members of the education recovery group on numerous occasions. We have shared the document widely with our stakeholders as we have gone through the process.

If Oliver Mundell has proposals for different policies, I would be more than happy to meet him about those, as I said at the start of my tenure as education secretary. We are about to begin the budget process. If he does not like what is in the material that came out yesterday, I look forward to seeing the proposals that the Conservatives will make on the issue.

The document that was published yesterday was a collation of what the Government is doing. Funnily enough, the Government did not start thinking about recovery in education over the past month; it has been at the forefront of our minds since before the election. That is exactly why we have put in place a lot of the measures that we have. The Government was elected on a manifesto that was designed to assist Scotland through recovery from the pandemic, which makes it unsurprising that the recovery programme that we had in our manifesto plays loud and strong.

We have ensured that we have in place policies that turn their full attention to recovery. For example, the Scottish attainment challenge is not new but, of course, it has been examined to ensure that it takes all the lessons from the pandemic so that, when I make more announcements on the Scottish attainment challenge refresh, I will not be announcing the same types of policy and funding streams as in the past, because we are moving on.

Of course we are using the different policy levers that we have had for some time and turning their attention to the pandemic. I do not think that the committee would expect anything less.

The SQA cannot ask for the date to be brought forward if the commission says that a delay is needed. That was the reason behind that.

When it comes to the terms of reference of the review, and the feelings of the unions and staff, I fully appreciate that, given my announcement that the SQA would be replaced, this is a time of great concern for staff. They are exceptionally passionate about their jobs and they are good at their jobs. As we go through the review process, there is clearly a concern about how they can be heard.

Different stakeholders made a number of points when we looked at the draft terms of reference in order for Ken Muir to take up his position. Again, as with all these processes, not all the suggestions of changes to terms of reference can be made. However, I hope that, since Ken Muir came into post, the unions have seen that they will absolutely have an ability to have direct discussions with him. My understanding is that that has happened already, and I am sure that it will continue to happen, although it is for Ken Muir to decide on that process. All staff will be able to feed into the process of the review. It is not the case that senior management will have discussions with Ken Muir, while the staff will be kept separate or that there will be one voice of the SQA that will be assumed to represent all staff. All staff, unions and, as people would expect, senior management on the board will be able to have their say in the review process.

I will certainly undertake to do that and get back to you in writing on that.