³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As I said, it is considering the four harms approach as a whole. Disruption to learning is one of the key issues. The sub-group advised that face coverings should be included in the mitigations that are in place in our schools, because the balance of the four harms approach included face masks as an important mitigation measure that allows less disruption in schools, which has a major impact on children’s health and wellbeing.

We already carry out functions in relation to the curriculum.

Forgive me, convener, but a variety of sectors across the country would absolutely say that some of the skills gaps have been accentuated as a result of Brexit. I do not think that that is too much of a political point; it is merely a statement of fact.

There are issues that have been going on for some time in certain areas. You quite rightly raised the issue of digital. That has been an on-going challenge.

To ensure that there are no structural challenges at the national level that have an impact on that, we are keen to ensure that SDS and the Scottish Funding Council work well together to assess skills gaps and what is happening in our education sector. The skills alignment work that has been done is very important in ensuring that, at Government level, our national agencies are working as effectively as they can from a skills point of view and an education point of view, and that they are working well together.

Another issue that we will need to look at as we move out of Covid is the challenge in providing support to key sectors. That is why there have been national transition training funds, for example, and why we have the flexible workforce development fund and individual training accounts. This year, we will evaluate the flexible workforce development fund and ITAs to assess whether more can be done to simplify and strengthen the lifelong learning offer, and to challenge ourselves on whether we can do more on that.

On digital shortages, a great deal of work is, of course, going on in that specific sector, which I probably do not have much time to go into today. However, I would be happy to give further evidence in writing on that to the committee, if that would help. Work is being done to deal with the short-term challenges that we have seen and to address the fact that we have a competitive market, which is making it difficult for small firms, for example, to take part.

At national Government level, we are looking very closely at what needs to be done by our funding streams and our national agencies to ensure that we are providing effective support to people when they need it.

I will look at the OECD report in its entirety. My officials and I have not only read the executive summary and recommendations; we have read the report, substantial as it is, so of course I have looked at every aspect of it. As I said in my previous answer, as we respond in full to the OECD review, I will challenge myself and we will challenge ourselves about whether more needs to be done on data to ensure that people have confidence in what is collected and that it is done in the right way.

We must be clear about what the OECD report said on standardised assessments. As I said at the start, standardised assessments do not judge the totality of curriculum for excellence. That was never their point. It is not what they were designed to do and, therefore, it is not surprising that they do not do that.

That has been discussed at great length in what is now the NQ22 group. Clearly, there were understandable concerns about the workload pressures that the alternative certification model presented to staff last year. We are not in that circumstance this year, as we are not doing the alternative certification model.

The key point that has been looked at, and on which a discussion is taking place, is about what the contingencies are, and a reassurance that no additional assessments will be required that teachers will have to carry out. That is a very important reassurance for teachers because, as I have said, they are still in the middle of dealing with the pandemic. The Government and the SQA were very keen to ensure that we took cognisance of the impact that decisions would have on teacher workload.

You will forgive me if I do not say too much about the refresh of the attainment challenge, as I will be making further announcements on that in due course. However, I can reassure the committee that the empowerment of schools to make decisions will remain very much at the heart of that, because they know their communities best and how best to use the PEF funding to support children and young people.

One of the challenges that the Government faces as we look to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap is that, despite the fact that we can do so much in education and despite our determination to do so, the issue of child poverty has to be tackled, too. I am working very closely with my colleague Shona Robison to see what we can do in our portfolios in that respect. The UK Government has, of course, taken away the equivalent of the Scottish child payment through its cut to universal credit, which will inevitably impact on children and families throughout the country and, in turn, impact on their preparations for school. The Government can do what it can to support children and young people through, for example, the school clothing grant and free school meals, but it does not help when another hand takes away part of our support.

The OECD has not said that the SQA is not fit for purpose. We need to be very careful about putting words into the mouth of the OECD—that is not a comfortable position for anyone in Parliament to take. The OECD has pointed out that we can look to having a different type of organisation in place that deals with curriculum and assessment. That is exactly the recommendation that I have looked at and acted on.

In the meantime, while the work carries on, through the Ken Muir report on what will replace the SQA and any reforms for Education Scotland, both Education Scotland and the SQA have important roles to play. It is exceptionally important that the SQA carries on that work to ensure that we have a credible and fair exams and assessment system next year. I have full confidence that the SQA will continue to do that, and I have full confidence in the SQA.

In many ways, that question goes back to my earlier answers to Willie Rennie about what information is collated. Part of that is the curriculum for excellence levels data, which we gather in order to assess young people’s progression through the levels. It is very important to look at what has been learned over that period, and the data is there. It is also important to look at the health and wellbeing of young people through that process. In December, there will be another survey on health and wellbeing, so that we can assure ourselves about where we are on that aspect. Of course, we expect the Government to keep a close eye on that not just because of the pandemic but generally. The national improvement framework interactive evidence report provides an overview of what we know about education and the context of young people’s progress, so that is being looked at.

Work is also under way to gather additional evidence for the 2022 national improvement framework from the lockdown lowdown survey as well as from surveys of headteachers and from the health and wellbeing census of pupils from P5 to S6.

That is why we are assessing it.

Ensuring the credibility of the process is important. The past two years have been like no others that we could have imagined or planned for when it came to what happened with the exams.

I made a point earlier about the professional judgment of our teachers. That has come to the fore over the past few years, proving that there are different ways of carrying out an assessment process that can lead to a qualification that is still credible.

Members do not have to take my word for it—or even the word of the SQA, even though one of its guiding principles is to ensure the credibility of the process and even though it works exceptionally hard to allow that to happen. We need only look at how the process was received by employers. I was heartened by a letter led by Sandy Begbie and signed by many other employers that credited our children and young people for going through what might have been a different process and facing challenges that none of the rest of us had to face when we were going through our exams—no matter how long ago that was—and which made it clear that employers had faith in what young people received at the end of the day.

Again, I pay tribute to the university sector, which worked in an exceptionally close way with Government and the SQA to understand the process and, as a result, to have faith in it when it came to entry requirements. The reaction of both universities and employers demonstrates the credibility of the approach that has been taken in the past couple of years and the fact that there are different ways of having a credible assessment system.