³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am incredibly enthusiastic about the whole package of reform that you have proposed. It is probably fair to say that the element that has captured public attention the most is the question about the status of high-stakes end-of-term exams and alternative assessment methods. You have not prescribed exactly what those alternative methods would be when it comes to what continuous assessment, et cetera, might look like.

To illustrate the options, I will pick Ken Muir’s subject. Five years from now, if a 16-year-old were to take geography, what could that assessment look like? If it is not the high-stakes end-of-term exam model, what might that experience be and what options are available?

You mentioned some of the potential new elements. Touching on what you said at the start of your answer, to what extent will it also be about recognising work that is already taking place? For example, you mentioned some of the assessment project work that is already happening in geography but does not currently count towards the final grade that a young person gets. How much of it is simply about bringing that into the mix of what makes up the collective assessment for their final grade? That would address some of the perfectly legitimate concerns that teachers have about workload, for example. It is about not just adding new stuff but recognising some of the good work that goes on that does not currently make up what decides the grade and what goes on the SQA certificate at the end of the year.

That would be useful. Thank you.

Thanks.

My next question touches on Willie Rennie’s line of questioning on the SQA and is about how this is taken forward and what specific proposals are adopted in taking forward your recommendations. I will ask a two-part question, because one part is a bit provocative and you might not want to answer it. How credible can the approach be if the SQA in its current form takes a lead on making decisions about what the new models of assessment might look like and what the balance of assessment might be?

You might want to sidestep that—although I urge you not to—so I will ask a general question. Who should Government involve in the next step of making those specific decisions on the balance of assessment and the models of assessment for each course, on the basis of your recommendations?

Professor Muir, you deserve a lot of credit for being one of the driving forces behind the organisational reform that is taking place, but, realistically, we are probably three to four years away from having the new qualifications body established, bedded in and operational. I presume that you would not want us to wait until we have the new body—hopefully, with its new culture—before engaging in the implementation of the recommendations. That leaves us with the question of the current SQA and its role in taking this forward.

Sticking with you first, Professor Heald—although I am interested in others’ views—it is easy for us to get stuck in a chorus of despair about this. We all acknowledge that we face the greatest financial challenge so far in devolution’s short history but, at the same time, as you have all mentioned, particularly Professor Bell, we have really ambitious targets for hitting net zero, lifting children out of poverty and so on. Inevitably, substantial increases in spending will be required if we are to stand any chance of hitting those targets, whether for net zero or child poverty. Even if we were very committed to a laissez-faire free-market economic model, we do not have enough time left, on net zero in particular, to find out whether that would work, because we have such a limited period.

You have all identified serious challenges to raising additional revenue through taxation, and the opportunities for us to cut spending elsewhere are extremely limited in the context of the Scottish budget. It is therefore hard not to feel as though you are edging us towards acknowledging that the targets and objectives that the Government has set are not realistic with the financial resources available to us. Is that fair?

I want to follow up on the point that Ruth Boyle just made—this is probably another question for Philip Whyte, and is on a point of clarification. I am broadly sympathetic to the tax proposals that you have laid out. However, on the question of local inheritance tax, my understanding of the current settlement is that we are allowed to create new local taxes but not if they replicate an existing national tax. Something like local inheritance tax or local capital gains tax would be outwith the current devolution settlement—the UK Government would not allow that because it replicates something that already operates UK wide. Obviously, that is in your proposals. Do you have a different understanding of what is currently within scope?

Does anybody else want to come in on that?

Professor Bell, do you have any thoughts on that? If I remember correctly, the citizens assembly that you mentioned came up with a pretty long list of potential new tax and revenue-raising powers. In that assembly, which was supposed to be broadly representative, there was a pretty broad consensus on the need not just to raise additional revenue but to broaden the sources of it. I am interested in your thoughts on where public opinion sits on these questions.