³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Convener, I was just checking with my officials that the Government-initiated question has now been published.

Eight local authorities will be funded through our test of change work, which allows us to look at how we might be able to scale up the delivery of free school meals in the future. Schools across the country have different needs. The GIQ sets that out in more detail, but it looks at secondary schools in particular.

I gave evidence to the committee on ASN last September, and at that time I gave an update on the refreshed code of practice. On the back of listening and responding to the committee, we made a number of changes to that.

Since that time, we have also had a parliamentary debate, in which the Government committed to a further review of ASN and how it is delivered. I contacted all parties this week to set up a meeting to look at the scope of that review, while being mindful that, as we undertake the review, we will also have to consider the code of practice, which is being updated anyway. I want committee members and Parliament to feed into that process, as far as possible.

The code of practice is fundamental, but when we consider ASN in its totality, we need to think about how children and young people experience support in schools. When I meet headteachers, classroom assistants and teachers, I am struck by the variation in how needs are met across the country. That has been the subject of recent debate, so it would be remiss of me not to talk about it.

There is a programme for government commitment that looks at better data collection. There is also the Audit Scotland report, which I accept provides a great challenge to the Government, but which I also welcome, because it talks about the need for transparency about ASN spend. The committee will be well aware that we spent more than £1 billion last year in relation to ASN, and the budget bakes in an extra £29 million for local authorities to be used for specialist staff. Transparency and the need for granularity are important.

There have also been arguments and suggestions for a national staged intervention model; Graeme Logan might want to say a little bit more about that. We have been discussing that with headteachers, because they have been clear in their discussions with me that they want to see consistency from local authorities on how their staff experience support and wraparound care for children and young people. The code of practice can go some way towards responding to that, but the wider request from Parliament for the review also has to take that work into consideration.

As I understand it, issuing letters of guidance was undertaken by somebody who sat in my position historically. Stuart Greig might want to say more on how we might be able to stipulate that, but it relates to the letters of guidance that we issue to the Scottish Funding Council, which is usually done at the start of the year.

I reiterate that the level of young people who have gone on to a positive destination three months after leaving school is 95.7 per cent, which is the second-highest level since records began. Therefore, I am not sure that I can accept the totality of what Ms Duncan-Glancy has said. When we look in the round at the—

I am not aware of the specific together to thrive programme, but I would be more than happy to engage in a visit with the member, perhaps during Parliament’s summer recess, after schools have gone back, to learn more about how that works.

On the substantive point about engagement with parents, no behaviour improvement plan will work without buy-in and support from parents. We have consistently seen that in relation to the way in which teachers have taken forward mobile phone bans. That will not work if you do not get the buy-in of mums, dads, parents and carers—you have to get that buy-in from home. When I launched mobile phone guidance back in August, I spoke to the head teacher at Stonelaw high school about the work that she had undertaken with the kids and with the school community, parents and carers to mine their own data so that they could look at how much time they were spending online and on screen. She got the buy-in of her whole school community by doing that, which took time but was the right approach for her school.

The same approach should apply in relation to behaviour. Many parents and carers are struggling after the pandemic and they turn to the school because that is often the service that is open. School is a constant in a young person’s life, but it is also a constant for many of our parents and carers who are unable to obtain support elsewhere. I was in a school in Dundee last summer and learned about approaches that they are using, through PEF, to support income maximisation officers who can support families with the cost of bills. We would not have countenanced using SAC funds for those things 10 years ago, but that funding is undoubtedly now being used to meet a wide range of family needs. That helps to close the poverty-related attainment gap, but we must be mindful not only of how support goes out to parents but of how it comes back to the school.

As I said, I would be happy to go on a visit with Mr FitzPatrick in the near future.

Your point about consequences has been raised with me consistently by the profession, and a range of consequences is already at teachers’ disposal. However, we know that there is currently reticence about the use of exclusion, for example. As I understand it, that will be for good reason—it should be used in only the most extreme examples of challenging behaviour—but it is a consequence that is at teachers’ disposal. Ultimately, it is up to them to exercise their professional judgment as to whether that is appropriate; it is not for me, as cabinet secretary, to instruct it.

The point raised in your question of last week is a live one. Tomorrow we will host a second summit on youth violence, which I will attend along with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. We will have cross-portfolio engagement on the issue of consequences. Of course, that will feed into our work on the same issue, which, as I said, we will publish before the end of term.

The PEF sampling work has been pivotal in looking at clear-cut examples of where PEF has made a difference. I am sure that the member will be aware of examples from her constituency. Every headteacher whom I meet at the events that we host and at school visits is asking me not to take PEF or Scottish attainment challenge funding away.

If members remember, the funding stream was always meant to be a 10-year funding stream. I have discussed that with the committee and given it and Parliament an assurance that the funding will continue to 2026-27, which is as far as any Government can go. I suspect that there is probably cross-party consensus that it is important that the SAC funding is maintained and that there is a PEF budget line within that.

I have said at the headteacher events that I have been to that I am struck by the normalisation of poverty in our schools, and the existence of food banks and clothing banks. The reality in our schools is that PEF is being used to meet needs that it did not have to meet 10 years ago. That means that the funding is being used in lots of creatively different ways to impact on our schools. For example, a primary school in Kirkcaldy that I visited recently was using it to fund a parents’ group. On the face of it, that might not be considered to be an educational intervention, but it is about getting mums involved in their children’s education and, in so doing, helping to improve attendance and attainment.

There is a link between allowing our headteachers the autonomy to use that extra funding for best use and the requirement of the Government to reflect on the impact of PEF. We have done that through the PEF sampling report, which tells us a positive story about the detailed impact that it has had.

We also need to ask, what more? Schools are responding to a need that they might not have had to meet in the past, so we are required to reflect on how we resource our schools post-pandemic. I have been keen to discuss that point with headteachers at the national events.

It is the second highest since records began.

That has not been deprioritised. It was part of the Bute house agreement, which I am sure that Mr Greer will want to come in on. It is tricky, because there are 32 councils that often do 32 different things when it comes to education; getting them all to agree on something is not without challenge, as the committee knows, because we regularly debate such matters.

Some local authorities—I would like to heap praise on mine, which might surprise Mr Rennie—have an approach to accreditation that involves supporting staff who join the pupil support workforce to become accredited at a certain level; other local authorities take different approaches and do not require accreditation. We will look to publish the report on that in the coming weeks.

I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Greer for all his input on the issue, which I am sure that we will discuss in further detail. ASN accreditation has been a key ask of the profession. I am absolutely committed to delivering on it, but I need to get agreement from local authorities, and from COSLA in particular, on how we roll that out nationally.