 Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2014. Can I remind all those present if they would please switch off their electronic devices, particularly the mobile phones, because they do interfere with the broadcasting system? The first item is whether to consider items 4 and 5 at this meeting in private, and whether to consider our work programme and draft report on the draft budget in private at future meetings. Are members agreed? That's agreed, thank you very much. Today we'll hear evidence as part of our scrutiny on the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2015-16, which is focusing on school spending. We'll hear evidence from two panels of witnesses today, starting with the Association of Directors of Education for Scotland and COSLA, after which we'll hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Life-Long Learning and the Minister for Local Government and Planning. Can I welcome to the committee this morning John Studsard, the General Secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. Good morning, and Councillor Douglas Chapman, spokesperson for education, children and young people, COSLA, and Robert Nicoll, chief officer, children and young people team, COSLA. Good morning to you all. Thank you very much for your written submissions, which the committee has been looking at, I'm sure, over the weekend. Very useful in setting out the views of both of you. We've quite a lot to get through today. I'm going to move straight to questions from members, but before I do that, I should indicate, of course, that I will be suspending at 10.45 so that members can go down to the garden lobby to take part in the remembrance day commemoration event in the garden lobby. We will be concluding your evidence between now and 10.45, just to let you know that we won't bring in you back after the suspension. Thank you very much for your forbearance in that. I'm going to begin the questioning this morning with Jane Baxter. Good morning. Looking at the evidence that has been submitted, I'm going to talk a little bit about the expected cuts in 2015-16. COSLA's submission acknowledged that there are internal and external pressures on education budgets, and ADAS said that there are no easy reductions that can be made and that all of the efficiency or easy reductions have already been taken. With that in mind, do ADAS or COSLA have a picture of the developing situation for education budgets and local authorities in 2015-16? Yes. The Association works on the basis of networks, so all of our members are part of our network and the networks cover our business. One of the networks is dedicated to resources. On a confidential basis, we meet regularly, so we hear from directors and from colleagues—we're not just directors—we have other tiers of the kinds of things that are being actively contemplated for the draft budget, so I can give you examples of the areas that are being looked at. It starts with admin and management in the centre, those services that support schools, business services, for example, that help them with their budgets and their clerical and admin. Curriculum development, staff development, improvement—that whole area of the quality improvement end of the business, so reductions in the number of officers doing this. This is a continuing trend, it's not a new thing. Less cover for schools, sometimes the actual staffing arrangements will become less generous in terms of their flexibility and their ability to cover. Management structures in secondary schools and in primary schools perhaps being reduced. Transport, cleaning, catering, maintenance, classroom assistance, auxiliaries, pupil support, devolved budgets—there isn't a single budget in the education service that is not being considered somewhere for a potential reduction. That's an interesting phenomenon because what you're getting is a little bit from everything, whereas our view is that it might be time to take a step back and look at the whole system across Scotland with partners to see whether there are maybe single big decisions rather than many, many, many small ones, which in our view have the effect of making the system more disparate and more difficult to actually see the effects of the reductions. I think that a lot of what John said is probably some of the difficult decisions that councils will have to make, and that is across not just through education but there's a sense that there's pressure on other budgets as well. That has a knock-on effect, but the very fact that education makes up such a large percentage of the local authority spend and most of that is already taken up by teachers, wages, terms and conditions and so on, and added to that, you've also got the obvious pressure of maintaining a large school of state across Lens and Brets in Scotland. Those are some of the difficulties that councils face. I think that you're right in your preamble in your question. There will not be any easy answers to this, but it's how we maybe start to look at how this education service is delivered across each local authority. At the end of the day, each local authority needs to come to its own conclusions about what those savings look like. The other thing is how do you involve the wider public in that process as well? Everybody has a stake in making sure that education is delivered to the highest standard possible. We've got a good track record in Scotland, but nevertheless, the pressures that are there, and we know that there's more financial pain coming down the tracks, so that's how we prepare ourselves for that. As far as local authority is concerned, there's probably not a lot off the agenda at the moment, and they're looking at a whole range of things. Whether those will transform into actual savings or efficiencies or cuts is another matter, but they're out for consultation at the moment. Are we looking at efficiencies or are we looking at actual cash reductions next year? For next year, the budget is fairly looking okay, but a lot of authorities are looking at the years beyond that as well and trying to prepare that ground to make sure that the savings can be implemented in later years, because sometimes it's not always that, even if you make a decision this year, sometimes there's a gap between that and actually the savings coming through, so you need to prepare that in advance. What impact will previous budgetary decisions have on pupils? Can I give a few examples of how this is impacting on pupils' experience of the education system? There are some areas where there will be impact on at least some families, so some authorities are looking at things like some of the support activities that go around the school. They might not be central to the teaching and learning in the classroom, but things like maybe after-school clubs, breakfast clubs, some of the support activity, sports and leisure, these kind of support activities. Some authorities are even looking at what happens on the way to school, so school crossing patrollers are being looked at. Then, more directly, there is a kind of indirect impact in that teachers report that there is less support generally from the centre, so if they are doing improvement activities and some of the improvement activities relate to individual pupils or groups of pupils, there is just less time to do that. For example, he had a very good example in a school where he had an improvement project, part of which was individual counselling for certain pupils and it was to do with their work. It was setting individuals down, giving them targets and it was taking maybe 15 minutes per day and in the first year they had very significant results and it was focusing on literacy and numeracy, but because of both reductions in budgets and cover, and also because of the lack of supply teachers that were able to get in, the management time in the school had been significantly reduced, the teachers, the deputy head teacher were now class-committed, so that is kind of in a bans for a year. Although we are not able to say that this goes directly into the heart of what teachers do, it does affect their working time, it does affect management time, they feel under more pressure because there is less support and that reduces their capacity in terms of multi-agency working and making the changes that everybody is committed to, which is trying to reduce the significant gap between the people who succeed in the system and those who traditionally have not succeeded in the system. It does, in our view, have an impact. It is easy to think that there is back room in the front line, but in an education service those things are very much integrated, so teacher numbers relate to all sorts of other things, pupil support and other types of staff in the school working in the school. Douglas? Just on the comment that you made about pupils and I think some of the evidence that you have taken to date looks at other groups other than pupils. I think that the great strength of local authorities is that local councillors make decisions on the budgets and they make them in with the main thing in mind, how do we actually protect the services that are there locally, how do we support pupils as best we can given some of the budget cuts that are facing us? I think that that is one of the issues that we should keep our minds on. We do locally within councils how do we provide that service for the people and try to support them even against some difficult decisions that need to be made. I will take some of the points that John has made as well. These are some of the examples of the impact of those decisions, but you try to mitigate them as best you can, trying to work smarter within the council. For example, we heard yesterday about three councils working together to deliver language training, Perthek and Ross, Dundee and Angus. There are different ways of providing the same level of service, just that you need to think differently about how that service is delivered sometimes to get the savings or squeeze the savings out of the system. At the end of the day, the people should be none the wiser that there are cuts in a way, but that is quite a difficult trick to pull off. Before I bring in Neil, I want to clarify a question that Jane Baxter just asked about the evidence from Ares. In the very first line, it says that education services were required to make significant further savings over the coming years of the order of several percent of current spend. Do you mean effectively that inflation will have that effect? Is that what you mean by the current several per cent? Or do you mean less cash? Is it a real-terms problem or a cash? When it comes down to the education service, the inflationary issues are all built in. Within the council, you are told that you have a target to reach, and that will include any inflationary pressures, so it could this year be in the information that we have, which is sketchy and not entirely reliable at the moment until these things are finalised. You are looking at between 2 per cent, which is the smallest one that I saw, and maybe up towards 6 per cent in a single year. In a sense, it is a director. That is what you presented with. We are looking for you, John, if I am the director in the case, for something like a 6 per cent reduction. You then have to produce papers, scenarios and ideas of where you might find that, and that starts the kind of corporate process of how you reach the final decision. The inflationary element will be built into that. Can I clarify whether or not part of that is the 3 per cent efficiency savings that local authorities are required to make? Those are kept, obviously, by local authorities. Douglas might be in a better position. I am giving you it from the point of view of the education authority side and what you have to deal with. You have to deal with that kind of percentage reduction. I guess that all those efficiencies and inflationary will all be built into the time that directors get their target for their savings. I will come to Douglas and Robert. I can try and help. Obviously, a council has the budget in the round, and there will be pressures right across the local authority. We have highlighted in our submission that, because education is such a large part of what local authority spends, it has rip-off effects across the authority and vice versa. It will have impact on other services not related to education and something like older people's care will have implications for education spend. Clearly, when an authority is trying to budget right across, it will have an idea of the savings that it wants to make right across the authority, and some of that will have to be passed to the education service in the way that is being described by John. However, the council will try and budget for the whole of its budgets, which is legally required to set a balanced budget, and will then factor in the efficiency savings that it has to make to allow that to happen? I am just trying to clarify whether or not there will be cuts in the amount of cash that education gets, or it will just be based on a standstill cash budget. Therefore, it is the inflation that we are talking about, and the reason that I am asking, just so that I am absolutely clear, is that the draft budget is a standstill budget in cash terms. Maybe if I can work down from that, others can chip in if need be. You are right in the sense that it is a standstill budget for 2015-16. However, once that is decided within the authority, the authority will decide what amount of money will be allocated to individual services. That is a local planning matter, depending on a number of different factors. At the same time, the authority will know across the piece what savings it will have to deliver to meet all its obligations and meet the quality of service that it wants. There is a standstill budget for 2015-16, however, that does not mean that there are significant financial pressures right across the authority that they will have to factor in. Can I maybe add to that? This is the single point that came up every year when I was director for 10 years in Aberdeen. The difference between what happens at the national level, where it looks reasonably okay and what happens when it comes down to the education service, is that there are contracts that the authorities will be engaged in, for example, PPP contracts. Often those contracts have an inflationary element built into them. Sometimes the inflationary element is bigger than actual inflation, so there is a whole element of increased costs, which when you do nothing, on a standstill budget, you are down because, as you say, there are inflationary charges. Some of those are unavoidable. There are also new burdens. There is a set of new burdens in the settlement. When you combine both the new burdens and the inflationary element and when it gets down to the service receiving the budget, it is a reduction. It is a reduction in the amount of money that you have to spend on the service. It is not a reduction in the amount of money that you have to spend, but we agree that the actual settlement is, in cash terms, a standstill budget. You may have to spend on more things, which is what you are saying. When directors are given a budget, the budget is reduced from the budget that they had last year, and within that they have to do more with it. That is the reality. Right. Now we are getting down to what I was trying to get a hold of. The budget that is provided by the Scottish Government is, in cash terms, the same as last year. That is the draft budget. What I am trying to get out is that our local authorities then decide that education will suffer a cash terms budget cut. I think that what Robert has explained is that all services are experiencing reductions. I think that they would be helpful. In years gone past, I think that a lot of local authorities have tried to protect education because they valued that as a key service. I think that what John Lennon and Robert are saying is that we are now at a stage where it is very difficult to offer that level of protection as much as we would want to do, because there are other demographic pressures, not demographic pressures, for example people growing older and needing more care and so on. There are other pressures from other parts of the services that we deliver that are making protecting that education budget much more difficult. That is some of the issues behind it as well. There are pressures on budgets. Even if there are still cash terms, that means that there are real terms cuts when factored into inflation. Obviously, we will talk about various different impacts on the education budget, but I just wanted to ask firstly about teacher numbers. I understand that the Scottish Government unions are in discussion about teacher numbers. What is the likely impact on teacher numbers from the budget this year and what would be the impact of a decrease in teacher numbers on the education system and what would be the impact of an increase in teacher numbers on the education system? First of all, the agreement that we have with the Scottish Government is that we serve to maintain a level of teacher numbers at the moment that would ensure that the ratio teachers to pupils remain for the same. One of the things about having an agreement around teacher numbers is that we have had a stable workforce over a period of time. However, in terms of moving forward, it has always been the view of COSLA that we start to measure things, not just in terms of what we are putting into the system but what are the outputs, what are the results of the activities that happen in schools. That is roughly where we are trying to take the debate at the moment. We are trying to move away from what our probably fairly crude input measures into looking more at what the outcomes might be. In terms of teacher numbers, if there was a reduction, it would probably join a better position given the experience to give us some background on that. However, the impact would be that you are looking at maybe larger classes across some subjects. Whether there is a direct link between that fall in teacher numbers and maintaining the level of attainment that you would want to see or improvement in attainment, the jury is out on that one. Nevertheless, it would have an impact in terms of teachers' role, I am sure. There would be two effects of reduced teacher numbers. One would be larger classes in primary. Because of so many primary schools, it might be one or two pupils that we are talking about on average across the piece. In secondaries, it would probably mean reduced subject choice when it comes to S3 and past the broad general education. Those are the two effects that I have practically managed both in reductions and in increased terms. That is what happens when you reduce the teacher number in an authority. Do local authorities have enough resources to maintain teacher numbers currently? It is a political question. They are committed to it in terms of the agreement through COSLA, so it is a political issue. They will maintain them in so far as they are able. The surveys conducted every September are due to be more or less on track for when the results are announced in December, so we are hoping to make sure that the current agreement as agreed to is delivered. There are two elements to this. One is this year, which we have an outstanding agreement with Government. I will know in December whether we have achieved that or not. The second part is what happens in future years. That is the work that we have highlighted in the submission that has just begun. On your question about impacts on reductions or increases, it has to be thought of in the previous conversation as to how you budget on the rounds. If you reduce one thing, that gives you more money to spend elsewhere. As John was saying, there are a range of things wider than just teacher employment that have a bearing on education. Clearly, there is an knock-on impact there as well. There is an agreement for this year of 2014-15. Obviously, we are looking at the draft budget for 2015-16. There is not an agreement as yet for teacher numbers. Not as yet. We have got some work to carry out first. Okay, that was good. Did you hear the concerns of the EIS last week when we were talking about that there is a real possibility that children could regularly be sent home because of a lack of teaching supply? Is that something that is of concern to ADS or COSLA? A lack of teaching supply resulting in the real possibility of children being sent home from school because of a lack of teachers? To talk about actual supply teachers, I do not know if that is what your questions are aimed at. If there are no teachers to teach the kids, obviously if there is a lack of supply to cover any absences, that would result in that scenario. We are nowhere near that position at the moment. We have an agreement for this year. We are working on an agreement for next year, so there is no indication that that would be the case. However, we are taking some time out over the next four or five months to work out with the Scottish Government what that agreement might look like. From our point of view, we want it to look more like what the outcomes for pupils are and how we measure that rather than attainment and achievement. How does that look in terms of the overall settlement? Can it be linked to the settlement? Those are all the questions that we are discussing at the moment. Robert and other officers are representing COSLA in that, and we are hoping to come to an agreement before the end of this financial year. At the moment, we are where we are in terms of teacher numbers, and there is no change to that at the moment. I think that the concern raised might have referred specifically to supply staff. There are parts of the country, as you know, that are experiencing real difficulty and having sufficient supply staff when they need them. There is a period between November and the end of February when, and it has always been the case that there is a potential for illnesses, for flu epidemics and so on, that really put a strain on the numbers available. However, it is a very difficult balancing act to pull off, to produce enough teachers to fill all the vacancies, but to also have just enough slack to have on the relief register without creating an issue of teacher unemployment. The Scottish Government has managed to pull off that balancing act for a number of years, and it involves an extremely sophisticated complex teacher planning model that predicts and tries to model all the factors involved in the supply end of the chain. However, what it cannot really do is predict people's behaviour in terms of the family decisions that they make to move or not to move across Scotland, or indeed council's behaviour when it comes to this kind of situation and budget decisions. There are areas that are experiencing difficulties. The Government has taken action to ensure that the supply end is turned up a bit now, even beyond what it might predict or expect. I think that that will be a temporary arrangement. In terms of sending the classes home, teachers use their discretion and try to avoid that where possible, so that they go beyond what they are obliged to do in order to avoid that happening. However, I am sure that there might well be situations coming February, if there is a flu epidemic, when head teachers are having to consider what the position is if they do not have enough staff, or if there is a very heavy snowfall, which is quite common in the north-east, where I am from. Did the snowing pressure supply as part of the pay agreement that we had agreed to last summer with the EIS and other trade unions? Part of that deal was that we would look specifically at the issues around supply, because we knew that there were some pinch points in the system, either subject-based or geographically-based. We set up a working party at that time, and that is due to report towards the end of the year early next year on some of the actions that local authorities will take jointly, or in conjunction with trade unions, to make sure that we have a more seamless system and that people who want to be involved in supply can find a wider range of work across a few local authorities, instead of just focusing on the one. I think that I know that some West of Scotland members here, whose constituencies are fairly close in terms of the council boundaries. I think that there has been a difficulty before in terms of people moving from one supply and one local authority and moving across the boundary to somewhere else. That is how we make that system a bit more joined up, so that we can take advantage of all the teachers who want to be on a supply list to make sure that we use the resources that we have to best effect and, hopefully, the recommendations from that working party. I will be with you quite soon. We have obviously heard concerns about the impact on teacher numbers from the cuts, but ADS has already mentioned other areas that have been looked at in terms of looking for efficiency savings, extracurricular activities, sports clubs and things like that. Last week, we heard concerns from parents organisations about the hidden costs related to the curriculum and the education experience, whether it be extra charges for music tuition or school trips or the need to fundraise more in schools. What is your response to the concerns of parents last week in relation to the costs or the increased costs that they see happening to provide that extracurricular and that school experience and the impact that that has, particularly on deprived areas where schools' fundraising efforts can sometimes not match those of more affluent areas? Certainly, if we deal with music services, there are certainly some authorities again considering increasing charges on music services, music tuition. The research, of course, is mixed about whether that has a negative or positive impact, because some of the highest-charging authorities have the highest uptake, so there is no direct relationship, ironically, between charging and uptake. Most authorities have some kind of remission scheme or support scheme for families who cannot afford it and who have maybe two children doing it and so on. That is a specific issue, but it is a good example of where authorities begin to look for savings. They look at the coon, the statutory on the one hand and then on the other side of the page they look at all the issues that they are not legally obliged to do, which are discretionary services and things like your after-school clubs or your study support or music would fall into that category. Naturally, if two thirds of the budget is protected and you are looking for a 6% saving, then you are looking at 18% in the remaining third, so all of these things come sharply into focus. How does that impact on parents? I think that it would be a mistake to say or to believe that parents are suddenly being asked for money because they have always contributed to the education system, certainly in terms of school trips, small amounts for materials for home economic, CDT and so on. They have always maybe had a special fund, a school fund, might look at white boards or some new piece of equipment. I would accept that they have made contributions, I think that they were saying that there is an increased burden. I am not aware of that, it may well be, but there has always been an issue about some schools and, as I say, I worked in Aberdeen where we had some of the most advantaged areas in the whole of Scotland, but also some of the 10% worst areas in terms of poverty. There has always been an issue that some schools cannot raise money and, certainly in Aberdeen, there were special schools attached to hospitals that could raise significant amounts of money. In fact, sometimes it was quite embarrassing the amount of money that big companies were prepared to put into special schools in particular. So there is an issue about a lack of equity when people are volunteering money or giving money on a voluntary basis, and I am sure that it is disadvantageous to families that do not have money. Do you want to add Douglas at this point? I mean, I think that we all appreciate that a lot of families and family budgets are under excessive pressure at the moment as well, so it is not just local authorities and Government. Again, because it is a democratic oversight of the services and some of the savings that we have got to make, councillors really think very carefully about how any cup might impact on a family. As John said, in terms of music, for example, if children are on free school meals, there is usually something in the local authority policy that says that children who access music services and are on free school meals would pay next to nothing or nothing at all for their music instruction, but that is not the situation across the board. Nevertheless, using that as an example, councillors think long and hard about how they can best protect the most disadvantaged families within their school area and make sure that those disadvantages are mitigated in some way to help with family budgets. Liam McArthur is a very brief supplementary question. I was just on relation to the issue of the sanctions that we had last week about the proposal going forward that were sanctions in terms of maintaining the teacher-people ratios being in place historically but would not be for the period that we are looking at here. Some concerns have been raised about the practical implications of that. Do you see any practical implications of that in terms of maintenance of the numbers? Obviously, the sanctions have never been implemented. Clearly, unsurprisingly, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argued that there should not be a sanction that is connected to it. We will have to see what December tells us in terms of the figures, but it is a national agreement, so it is not on a per-council basis. As of next year, we will have to see what the outcome of that is. If that is successful, then hopefully we are in a completely different situation. We are talking about outcomes rather than measuring things such as teacher numbers. You are conscious of the risks that if teacher numbers drop, you have actually made the argument for sanctions in the minds of some. There is also an argument that why would you take money away from an authority that is trying to invest in education? We do not think that there is any argument for a sanction, but clearly that is part of the negotiations that we have to take place with the Government and that we have to give and take on those things. The argument is that money can be taken away because you are not investing in education. You are cutting teacher numbers, so that is the reason for the sanction being in place. Clearly, it is linked to the agreement. As we are pointing out, councils have to budget in the round and there are pressures right across the authority. I do not think that that is a matter of authorities not investing in education. It is authorities under pressure right across what they do. I would like to ask some questions similar to what I asked last week's panel. It is about possible solutions to budget pressures because that is the type of guy I am. Let us try to find a solution. There is no such thing as an impossible situation. ADES is quite interesting in the fact that they say that ADES has developed a range of ideas that suggest that system-wide change provides a more sustainable approach. That can only be achieved through national discussion as opposed to each local authority finding its own solutions. Could you expand on ADES's range of ideas? There are two things that need to happen before we get into the detail of what the ideas might be. One is an agreement from politicians—that would be the Parliament, people at yourself, Cosla—that maybe we can look at the whole system, what we call the learner journey from very early years, all the way through to 18 and beyond. We would need that kind of sanction or that agreement first. We would then need the discussions about specific ideas and what those might mean. Those would have to be worked up in a way that shows two things. One, there is clearly an educational advantage and benefit in that we can improve the system and be that it is more efficient and that there may be a financial saving in it. The third element would have to ensure that no one was disadvantaged by this. I am not suggesting this, but people have talked about, for example, the age at which children start school. There are some schools of thought that say that six would be a better time to start school education. If that were educationally proven, then you would have to ensure that families were not disadvantaged in that process and that you had a system that could support children starting at six and that you were confident that it was going to lead to improved outcomes. That is the kind of issue that you would have to have a lot of agreement. You would have to work it through. You would have to be able to consult on it. You would have to involve parents. You would have to involve trade unions. I am not proposing that as an idea, but I think that it gives you an idea of the sensitivities and the potential difficulties of taking any whole-system change decisions. In our view, we do not really have a mechanism in Scotland for having that kind of decision, that kind of debate. It is these kind of whole-system issues that we need to begin to look at. Our view is based on the fact that, currently, because of the decisions that are being taken, we are moving into a more diverse situation, whereas what we are trying to do is to improve equity and fairness. It has become increasingly difficult to see what the situation is like. It is linked to issues such as performance and performance frameworks and so on, so we think that there are issues there that we need to look at so that we can be much clearer about what progress is being made and whether the gap is closing, so maybe more data and more intelligence. There is a whole set of issues. This is just a professional view that we need to talk about in terms of the whole system, as opposed to individual cuts, because this year it looks difficult. Further years are going to be even more difficult. You mentioned your submission that some functions are best delivered locally, some on a more regional basis, similar to what you are saying. Are you counselling or some across some council partnerships? I bring that up because shared services has been the mantra since I was a counsellor, and during my time there were various starts and things stopped again. Some of the parents from the groups last week, the Scottish Parent Council forum at Eileen Pryor, said that, in her submission, the time has come to a radical rethink to step back and ask, is local authority delivery the best way forward for education? I like you, I am not saying that is the way forward, but is this a conversation that we should be discussing, how we deliver education? I want to make it clear that we are specifically not saying that the political structures should change or that the governance structures should change. We are talking about operating within the current governance and political structures, and we are saying that there are areas of education that could be delivered in a different way, in a joint way. If I give you specific examples—again, I am not advocating this—we looked into literacy for the Government. There were three literacy schemes that were based on a hub model. Five counsellor Chapman's own authority was one of them. Weston-Bartonshire was another one. North Lanarkshire and Edinburgh were one. They were able to see significant benefits in working across those authorities, particularly for psychologist teams. Currently in Scotland, on the Currie report, every authority requires a principal psychologist, and at least one deputy. In some cases, you get three or four deputy psychologists. We found that operating across a number of authorities, there were real benefits for those psychologists because very small teams were getting access to different kinds of expertise, and it was a better way of operating. Again, I am not suggesting that we do that, but it illustrates how there are issues where you can operate in a different way. There are a few years ago, local authorities looked at procurement, and instead of doing it all individually, they worked with the Scottish Government to have a national procurement system. There may be issues like that within education where it could be done. I am not suggesting a centralised national body. I am not suggesting taking education out of education authorities. I just think that it is time that local government, national government and the interested parties, including parents and unions, might be able to look at the allocation of functions in a different way, which might provide efficiencies. From a causal perspective, Douglas, Larry Flanagan said last week that the main barrier was political context, so he says that it is his fault that we cannot get shared services over. As a former councillor, I probably take some of the blame as well. How can we manage to get shared services to work? There never seems to have been anywhere where some of the examples that you have used, John, are good examples, but there is other places that I know for the fact that in Clyde Valley it fell at pieces. Why are not we doing this? It is not rocket science. I would not want to comment on Mr Flanagan's comments. I was hoping to build on what John was saying. There are a lot of big things going on in Scottish education just now. From early years, I reckon that excellence is still developing and that is a good thing. We have the Wood commission, which is looking at the outcomes for young people as they progress to their education. There is a big activity going on in terms of attainment and trying to close the gap in literacy. Those are all the big things that are happening. It is how, as a local authority, we can make that work better and how we can use all the talents of our teaching workforce to make sure that we get better outcomes. It may not be in some such circumstances that the shared service is between authority and authority. It could be that in terms of a high school cluster, for example, you could get some efficiencies in that cluster where the outcomes for the children across right from early years, right from excellence, which goes right from 3 to 18, and into the Wood commission and the recommendations that have got there. What are the kind of efficiencies that can be built into the system there? I know that a lot of people have talked about, for example, subject choice. If you have two or three high schools that are fairly close proximity and one is not providing higher German, for example, could you make one of the high schools, the German hub, so that if we do have children who want to pursue a qualification in German, get a higher, then for that time of the day they would go to the German hub or they could be done online or there are other ways of delivering that education to that young person and help them in their learning. I think that you are right in terms of shared services across local authorities. It has not always worked as well as people would have hoped, but there are other ways of working smarter. That was some of the comments that were made by the parents group last week, how they have worked smarter when things are financially tough. I think that those are some of the ways that we could do it. The teaching workforce is up for that sort of challenge. I think that those are some of the changes that could be implemented maybe not easily, but with a fair wind that would be a way forward and maybe provide you with some of the solutions that you are keen to see. Thank you. What we are trying to do today is obviously to look at the budget and to look at the impact of the budget on education for this and future generations. However, I do have some difficulty given the Audit Scotland report and I have to quote, that there has been no independent evaluation of how much council spend on education and what that delivers in terms of improved attainment and wider achievement for pupils. I am just struggling as a deputy convener of the Audit Committee but also with the Education Committee hard on. If we look at the same report, there is Auditor General again. There is no consistent approach to tracking and monitoring the progress of pupils from P1 to S3. I hear what the consular is saying. In fact, I think that you say that you have come to an agreement with the Scottish Government. From next year you have reached a new agreement where you should begin shifting the focus away from input measures such as teacher numbers to more useful measures of education outcomes. Obviously, I very much welcome that because I do think that it is a bit like the NHS and more doctors and nurses. Does that mean that we are all healthier? I am struggling to find out where the outcomes are. According to the Auditor General, there is no relationship defined between how much is spent on education and where it is spent, whether that is more teachers, less teachers, more quality improvement, more staff development, more primary teachers. We just do not seem to have the information about where is the best place to spend the money in order to achieve a better outcome. I cannot find that. Auditor General says that you do not have that. Can you help me? I think that it ties into what John was talking about earlier. Clearly, the link between spend and attainment, in what you put into a service, you get something out of it. However, it is not right to say that if you spend x amount, that gives you a return in terms of outcomes. The idea that you just magically alight in a figure and that gives you everything that you want, that is not true. Clearly, there is a far more complicated picture than that. To some extent, that is the work that we want to undertake. We are not necessarily saying that it is easy or not, but that is what we want to undertake. If you look at what you can get information on, it tends to be round about things that you can more easily measure, things such as qualification levels and things that tend to be more than senior phase. That is part of the issue. John was talking about work about how you better understand the impact that certain things might have. If you invest in them, will they deliver a result or not? That is what he was saying there. There is a gap between broad general education primary and early secondary in terms of the information that you could gather from that. To some extent, that is a challenge that we recognise. I do not think that we are going to be solving that in five months, but what we are trying to do is make a good start on that so that we can build on that in subsequent years. There is obviously more focus on Scottish education in the past 16 years. Can you understand that it is a bit of a shock that the Auditor General says that we do not know the relationship between spending and outcomes? Decisions have been made. This is directors of education. The level of support, support assistance, breakfast clubs, study support, auxiliaries, after-school care, sports culture, leisure clubs may well be reduced. Many already have been reduced. Some will also review vocational options, course offerings and links with college. We are talking about the Wood commission. The removal of management, development, quality improvement and support posts from central staffing and all authorities has reduced schools' capacity to respond to curriculum, development and agency working. The point that I am making is that all of this page 3 on the briefing paper from the directors of education, spending and education has been reduced. Given that we are seeing an increase in children going to primary school, in the past four years primary school teachers have been reduced by 12 per cent. We do not know whether that will affect attainment or achievement for school pupils in general. You are saying that you do not really know the link between spending and outcomes, but there has been a pretty good fist at cutbacks here. How do I know, as a member of this committee, that you are cutting back in the right places and that this is going to lead to better outcomes? The important point to remember is that there is local scrutiny over budgets. The decisions that are taken locally, as Chancellor Chapman was saying, clearly they have to weigh up the impact that certain things are having. Do they know what works and what is better and what is not? John might be able to talk about it a little bit more. Clearly there is information that councils have about service planning, about what happens within schools. There is more information locally, but you cannot aggregate that up in a comparable way to develop a national picture, so that is what we are saying. However, just to use raw figures such as spend per pupil, that does not necessarily tell you much about whether that is a good service or not. There is a much more nuanced picture and that is the role of local education authorities in terms of their scrutiny or role of their responsibilities. There is a lot of information that goes to councillors in terms of educational performance in individual schools. You will no doubt be aware of that as well. From local authority and Fife, we interview our local headteachers and have them in to be scrutinised on their individual school performance. The level of professionalism that we have within local authorities is a central point of view in terms of quality control and making sure that schools are supported even though we are facing some fairly serious cuts. The level of support that is already there in expertise means that we can focus on the things that do work in schools and make sure that our staff are in a best position to try and deliver the services, even with the background of having some severe financial pressures. I am going to move on to Liam McArthur. I was going to ask about whether or not we have got the balance between national local decision making right, but I think that John probably answered that in response to George Adam's questions. In the same session with last week's witnesses, there was some discussion about the effect of postcode lotteries, which I suppose are the flip side of local based prioritisation. However, there was also an argument that there was perhaps a need for more national parameters, so if not ring ffencing at least national parameters, I think that Larry Flanagan was talking about a national staffing standard. Now I know, Councillor Chapman, that you were not going to be lured into commenting on EIS's remarks last week, but in relation to that, do you have any observations about how that might be made to work at a local level? I mean, there are already guidelines set down in terms of class sizes across all primary stages and into secondary. That is often the trigger for establishing what the staffing levels might be within a school. I think that we may need to hear more detail about what is in Larry's head, but, as far as we are concerned, I think that we are content with the current system and whether there is a change in relationship, I think that that is something that we need to discuss with the Scottish Government. At the moment, we have a very definite role in terms of delivery and making sure that, if there are national ambitions or standards to be met, then that is a part of the negotiation that we have with the Scottish Government. We do that on almost a day-in-daily basis to make sure that local authorities are delivering what is expected of them. If we have any concerns with the direction of travel in terms of education policy, then we have a pretty good line into the decision makers within the Government to say that maybe we should rethink X or Y, but, at the end of the day, it is a negotiated settlement, and that is the way we will work, and it seems to work quite well. I will put you back to the point that you made earlier about the example that you used in relation to supply teachers and drawing on that pool across local authority boundaries, which, on the face of it, seems to make sense. Difficult for your constituency. Indeed. The ornith being the exception to the rule is not something I am unfamiliar with in the committee. In compensation for something that made raw supplies teachers across a wider area, is there scope for looking at arrangements that would allow the duration of that supply to be over a longer period and provide them a degree more certainty and continuity, both for the staff but also for the pupils as well? Is that a quid pro quo that you would see being necessary as part of that arrangement? I want to bring another member in before we have to close. That is fine. A lot of teachers who are involved in supply might not do it as a full-time career. They do it because they might have to fit round either caring for children or caring for elder relatives and so on. It is not always as easy as you would suggest. If a day here and a day there is spread over a larger area, you can see how that may pose problems. On to the previous point. We are working on a range of recommendations, so we need to take that into account when we come to conclusions on that. I will certainly take that back to our next meeting as well. Very briefly, Clare Adamson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I would like to ask something that has been touched on in the evidence about the national performance framework. Is there any evidence to demonstrate that the national performance framework has helped to improve outcomes at the moment? How does it inform the spending allocations of both the Government and local authorities? The national performance framework has certainly encouraged authorities to look much more in a more focused way at what they are producing as a result of the investment in education. I have to respond to some of the points that Mary Scanlon raised, because the auditor's report said that there has been improvement over 10 years. Part of that is because people are focusing on what makes a difference. Obviously, there is a lot of research on what makes a difference in education and the Government produced some documentation for authorities on the basic things that improve education systems, so that is what authorities improve on. Half of the recommendations in the auditor's report are about better benchmarking, better performance information, and that is at the operational level. Although the report says that there is no consistent framework, individual authorities have a consistent framework. What it is saying is that there is no agreed shared across Scotland, and it is very important to distinguish between high-level outcomes at the top end where used politicians want to know things are improving and the investment in education is having success and the detailed operational, day-to-day progress tracking of teachers. That is where they become nervous if their individual tracking becomes part of a public accountability issue. Their accountability is directly to parents. If parents want to find out how their parents are doing, they go to the school to speak to the teacher that that is proper accountability as long as that is benchmarked and checked and so on. So somehow we have to work out a system that meets all of these requirements, requirements of parents, the sensitivities of teachers, the high-level performance measures that you will require as a parent. Please join me in 10 minutes time in the Garden Lobby, where all building users will be invited to observe two minutes silence of remembrance for all those who have suffered and died in the service of their country and all those who mourn them. There will be a further announcement to indicate the start of the period of silence. That is why I was trying to hurry you up there. Clare, do you have a very brief supplementary question? It was Douglas Eileron who mentioned about moving towards more outcome focus in what Causillus is moving forward with in this, but Larry Flanagan was quite sceptical last week in his evidence about that, saying that the outcome agreement is maybe so nebulous that it may not mean anything. Could you comment on that? I think very briefly. I think that at a national level, there need to be that high level and there seem to be a bit of a blunt instrument in a way. I think that the real value is looking below that and some of the work that local authorities carry out and head teachers carry out with their staff in schools, and that is where our focus is and where the focus should be on the relationship between the people, the parent and the school, to make sure that we are delivering the outcomes that we need to grow and develop our economy. That is really what it is all about. How do we make our economy stronger by having a well-educated workforce or children leaving school to become part of that workforce? Thank you. Obviously, we have been slightly curtailed for good reason this morning, so I thank you for your evidence. It was very useful in a number of areas. We will follow that up with the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister. On the next panel, we will reconvene R11-15, but before I suspend, I just say that it is my intention to write to you to follow up on a number of areas and some of the areas that we did not get a chance to reach this morning because of the slightly curtailed time for the panel this morning. Hopefully, you will be able to respond to us quite quickly so that we can include your answers in our report. I welcome our second panel of witnesses this morning. We have Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Derek Mackay, Minister for Local Government and Planning, Fiona Robertson, director of learning and Bill Stitt, local government, France team and Scottish Government. I understand that both the minister and the cabinet secretary would like to provide short opening statements. Are you going to begin? Thank you, convener. In a moment, Derek Mackay will set out the broader context of the budget, but first I am going to speak about the progress that we are making and some of the decisions that we now face if we are to meet our ambitions for Scottish education. Since 2007, we have seen constant improvement in our education system supported by appropriate change. When this Government first came to power, curriculum for excellence was running aground, standards were slipping, our PISA scores were drifting and a high proportion of our school buildings were in poor condition. We have turned this around. CFE has now been rolled out as a way we do education and is producing ever better outcomes. We have record exam results and a record high number of school leavers in positive destinations. We have halted our decline in the PISA tables, we have reinforced our international standing in education and we have more newer refurbished schools. 463 school building projects have been completed since this Government came to bar 135 more than the preceding administration. There is other progress to convener on early years, on free school meals, on attainment, on vocational education. Across all the main measures, across the whole area of education, what exists now is better than what existed in 2007. That is the reality. We cannot rest on our laurels, indeed we should not. We should do more. We should work across the political divide with the unions, with parents, with pupils, with local authorities. That is how we achieve the best results for Scotland. I made that case to this committee convener in April. I will make it again now. Of course, with the powers of independence and the powers of a normal state, we could have used tax, welfare and labour market regulation to bear down on the real enemy of educational progress, which is poverty. In the events, Scotland did not vote yes, but there are consequences to that decision for this and for future budgets. We have now to find a way of getting better results with the money that we have. The first thing that we should do, convener, is to be true to the tradition of Scottish education, whilst always seeking to improve outcomes. We will not do that by chasing the latest fad. We will not do it by misrepresenting the actual improving reality of Scottish education. We will not do it by imitating what is failing elsewhere. The Finnish educator, Pasi Sulberg, is now teaching at Harvard, and his students are studying for the master's degree in international education and looking for approval at what Scotland is doing now, describes much of what is taking place in other countries as being infected by germ, the global education reform movement. I would be happy to explain the perils of germ at greater length later if I am asked, but I do want to reinforce the real key points of germ because we are trying to improve Scottish education by utilising those points. Successful, well-rooted educational systems, which are not part of germ, have high confidence in teachers and principals as professionals, encourage teachers and students to try new ideas and approaches, in other words, to put curiosity, imagination and creativity at the heart of learning, and see that the purpose of teaching and learning is to cultivate development of the whole child. I want Scotland to remain germ-free, and that is what I think the vast majority of Scottish parents and teachers want too. I want a system that has high confidence in teachers, that is open, creative, and Scotland is the best place to grow up. That approach encourages innovation. That is why, for example, the week after the referendum, I announced we convene a children and young person summit. That is what we are doing, and I was bowled over at the first planning meeting yesterday by the ideas and aspirations of Scotland's young people. Instead of being fixated with structures, our approach is focused on improving and closing the attainment gap, as well as creating greater equities. It is an outcome-based approach with local authorities and that is the best guarantor of educational stability and progress. We should be placing teachers, young people, teaching and teachers at the heart of improving outcomes for our children and young people. Let me make it absolutely clear to the committee. I do not believe that you can drive up attainment and improve outcomes with fewer teachers. We are, of course, committed to working with local government and with the engagement of parents and trade unions in seeking to reach an agreement on better educational outcomes and what these might be. Those discussions have commenced, they are not concluded. Teachers are at the heart of achieving the very best outcomes for our children and young people and a top priority for government. So, convener, the progress we are making in Scottish education, the hard work we put into curriculum for excellence, the inspiration we are drawing from the improvement partnerships, the emphasis we want to place on developing Scotland's young workforce, all those things now need to be taken forward in a time of ever greater financial insecurity. The time is, of course, right for a detailed reflection by all the players in Scottish education about what should come next and how Scotland can continue to improve. We must press on with the progress that we have made, but we will do that by building on the strong Scottish approach to innovation, as well as our proud history as the oldest system of compulsory schooling in the world. I am very open to the discussion, convener, about how we do that and I look forward to that discussion. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has clearly outlined how the Scottish Government has created the forward-looking policies for our local government partners to take forward and implement, but they also need to have adequate resources to fulfil those ambitions. The vast majority of the funding for primary and secondary school spending is provided as part of the annual local government finance settlement, and, as the committee will know, the Government has worked very hard with COSLA to provide as fair settlements as has been possible, given the cuts imposed on the Scottish budget by the UK Government. Given that the Scottish budget is roughly divided into three, with health and local government sharing around two thirds, and everything else has to be funded from the remaining thirds, and the health budget having received a real-terms increase in each and every year is set out in our manifesto, that meant that some very difficult decisions have had to be taken to maintain the local government budget. Despite those pressures, local government has been treated very fairly under this Government, and with local government finance settlements being maintained across the period 2012-16 on a like-with-like basis with extra money for new duties. That has resulted in a total settlement of over £10.6 billion in 2014-15, and that is set to increase to almost £10.8 billion in 2015-16. We do as a Government, however, expect something in return for maintaining our funding in the face of this difficult financial situation. I have worked with COSLA to ensure that all 32 local authorities have frozen their council tax since 2008-9, and as the Cabinet Secretary made clear in his opening statement, we are working with COSLA to reach an agreement on what educational outcomes may look like. Local authorities supplement their central Government funding with their locally raised council tax income, and again the Scottish Government has fully funded the council tax freeze by providing an additional baseline sum of £78 million for each year from 2008-9 for each of the seven years of the freeze to date, with a further £70 million being provided for 2015-16. The committee will be well aware that there are no actual allocations of funding for specific services with the vast majority of the funding, including funding and support of primary and secondary school education being provided by means of block grant. This Government does not believe in micromanaging how local authorities spend their money. It is the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled their statutory obligations and the jointly agreed set of national and local priorities. We know, however, that local authorities are budgeting to spend £4.6 billion this year on education, which represents 40 per cent of their total net revenue expenditure. I would, of course, be happy to answer any question that committee members may have about local government funding settlement and allocations. Thank you both very much. We are just going to straight to questions now, and can I begin by asking Jane Baxter to start us off? My question is pretty straightforward. Do you expect that there will be significant cuts to local authority school budgets in 2015-16? No, I hope that that will not be the case. The Scottish Government funding to local government is set to increase from £10.6 billion this year to £10.8 billion in 2015-16. It is for local authorities to decide how to spend the resources allocated to them, as the minister has indicated. Ring ffencing has virtually disappeared, but no, I see no reason for that. However, I do think that there is a strong argument for imagining and putting in place better ways of delivering. For example, I know that you have been talking with various witnesses about shared services and issues of that nature. I think that local authorities could become ever more effective in delivering by taking those routes. In addition, it is the case that some of the new funding that has been announced arising from political priorities, such as expansion in childcare and free school meals, are dedicated specific resources for those purposes, which are negotiated with local government. Each council will embark on various consultation exercises as to how they manage their budgets. Of course, not everything that they are consulting on may come to fruition in the budget. They should be aware of the cycle, there is consultation, and final figures are approved by this Parliament. Then councils will set their budgets. They will look at a range of options, but we have no reason to believe that the nature of cuts that you suggest would be impacted on local schools. It has been the aspiration of councils to meet their obligations and to commit to the new obligations that the Parliament has agreed and have negotiated with local authorities and to balance the books. However, the member will be well aware that it has been in quite difficult circumstances with financial pressures and cost pressures. However, the way in which we have been able to protect local government has been significant. Quite a different picture south of the border, I have to say, where they have had the worst of all worlds of reducing budgets, compulsory redundancies, council tax rises. The worst of all worlds, which is not the case in Scotland, said that there are significant pressures that I am sure we will explore as the day goes on. That being said, how do you explain the perception and submissions that are given to us by ADES, teachers unions and parents groups that there will be cuts? Last week, again this morning, they believed that there will be cuts. I think that they are in a position here that does not deny the challenging economic position, but also makes it clear that the decisions that local authorities have to make are for local authorities to make within a budget settlement that is as generous as we can make it. My colleague Mr Swinney and Mr Mackay work constantly with local authorities in that regard. Nobody could deny, of course, the pressure from Westminster on Scottish Government budgets, and the austerity measures that we have had and, allegedly, are still to come. If you read today's press, you will see that the Treasury has apparently been asked for £30 billion worth of further cuts. We are not immune from that, of course, but I do think the approach that we have taken, which is very deliberate. First of all, to remove at the request of the local authorities ring fencing to the massively greater part, to allow local authorities to make their own decisions, to ensure that the priorities, educational priorities, are clear, but allow them, which is the Scottish model, allow them to interpret how they deliver those educational priorities in their own way, has been the right way forward. I do think that there is more that local authorities can do to, as I say, reimagine the delivery of education and to work across boundaries to make sure that the education is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. That is what I would encourage them to do. James Baxter will be well aware that education is a very large part of a local authorities budget. Approximately, if you were to take an average of around 40 per cent of total budgeted net revenue expenditure by local government, it is on education. You have to put the overall financial picture in context. That is, in large measure, due to staffing costs, of course. If there were to be no reductions at all in education, you can imagine the impact on other services as well. You have to look at everything in the round. It is very mindful, as I assure all members, of the Audit Scotland report, the Accounts Commission. It looks at deprivation as well as a factor in education. We have to consider all services as they affect young people as they go forward. However, as you see, there is a range of consultations. Not everything that a council consults upon may come to fruition. That will be a matter for them. As they consult and engage, they make the priorities that reflect the demands of local communities. We would expect that consultation to involve parents, pupils and staff as well. Last time you were at the committee, you said that you would like to maintain teachers' numbers, and, if possible, to increase them. Do you still stand by that comment? Can we take that as a commitment that teacher numbers will be maintained in the coming year? I do not employ a single teacher, as you know, Mr Bibby. Those are employed by local authorities. You are also aware that the local authorities, led by a Labour Councillor, Councillor O'Neill, have requested that the Scottish Government sit down with them, and I quote the letter of agreement on this matter, that we sit down with them and discuss outcomes in education because they have raised issues of teacher employment. The agreement that we have come to to have those discussions has a number of elements. We have a present commitment to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. You heard this morning the commitment from Councillor Chapman that that would be met in the current year, and I am glad to hear that commitment, because it is for local authorities to meet it. Going forward, local authorities want to discuss whether that is simply one element within the mix and whether there are other things that they need to do. I have made it clear to local authorities that I am willing to have conversations, but they cannot be without the involvement of teachers' unions, without parents and without others. I have also made it clear that, if no new agreement was reached, there would be a continued commitment, exactly as it is now, to maintain those teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. I have also said in my statement this morning that I do not believe that you can increase outcomes by reducing teacher numbers, so that is where I stand, and that is where I will continue to stand. Indeed, I think that that is where most reasonable people would stand. You are obviously taking part in those negotiations by wanting to maintain teacher numbers. Previously, you said that, if possible, you wanted to increase them. Will you provide local authorities additional resources for more teachers? We already provide resources for local authorities to maintain teacher numbers, £41 million in addition to the normal settlement. We already provide a resource that is underspent, but we do not claw it back on probationers. We provide £37.5 million for probationers of which councils presently spend around £21 million. I would love to have lots more money available for education. That would require a different financial settlement from the one that we are in. However, my policy and intention would be to maintain teacher numbers, so I think that it is important. I think that you should raise this issue with some others. I think that you could start raising it with councillors Matheson McCabe, leader of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire, who are responsible for a quarter of the reduction in teacher numbers since 2007. I think that you should also reflect that, since I put in place the agreement with COSLA in terms of teacher numbers matching pupil numbers, we have had a very small reduction. I am as good as my word in this. I would like to do more. I hope that local authorities would also share my ambition. Perhaps you could persuade your Labour Party colleagues to share that ambition. That is quite interesting when I am raising issues about education in Scotland. The education secretary turns around and says that he raised it with somebody else. No, I do not say that. If you do not understand how Scottish education works, Mr Bibby, I am happy to tell you. The delivery of education is done by local authorities. That is what you are inquiring into. I would have thought that you would have realised that. In those circumstances, there are a number of players. I am not the sole player in Scottish education. I would not contend that. There are a number of players and local authorities are a key player. There is, indeed, a tripartite structure in place in Scotland that involves trade unions, local authorities and the Scottish Government. They all have to be part of the process. I am suggesting to you that those parts of the process that you could also influence, which are the Labour authorities that have cut teacher numbers, should go and influence. Cabinet Secretary, I started my question by reminding you of your comments the last time you were at the education committee, when you said that, if possible, you wanted to increase teacher numbers. I am asking you, will you provide additional resource for extra teacher? If possible, I would provide additional resource. Mr Bibby, you also support a system that is born down on the Scottish Government's resource. You should take some responsibility for the financial pressures that exist in Scotland. You campaigned recently for a system that drives down the Scottish budget. You can shift in your seat all you want, Mr Bibby. That is the reality. If you are prepared to work across party deadlines, to work with me and local authorities to secure, first of all, the existing teacher number commitment and, secondly, to see a desirable increase in teacher numbers, I am with you on that. However, I understand that there are many players in that, and that includes those people who have driven down the Scottish budget. We are not here to rerun the independence referendum, but have you seen the price of oil that we were calculating all the resources of an independent Scotland go down recently? You are still a friend of a system that is driving down the Scottish budget. We cannot avoid it, Mr Bibby. I am going to answer up, because I do not want to rerun the independence referendum today. I am sure that there are plenty of opportunities to discuss that subject with the committee, but let us stick to the budget and education that we do not mind. You said that, if possible, you would like to thank these teacher numbers. Are you now seeing that it is impossible? No, it is perfectly possible to do so, providing that the resources are provided. But recognise the realities of finance, Mr Bibby. Recognise the realities of a sterity that you have supported. Recognise the roles of Scottish local authorities and particular Labour authorities that continue to drive down teacher numbers. Let us try—I made it clear in my opening statement—to work together on that. The presentation of those figures that you have given has been partial and has been largely inaccurate. I am trying to get the best deal possible, because I regard teachers, as I have indicated, as exceptionally important to delivering education. But you will not provide local authorities with more money for more teachers. Mr Bibby, when that money is made available in a suitable financial settlement, I will be delighted to provide it. Why do not you argue for that best type of settlement instead of being an enemy of that type of settlement? Why do not you argue for that within the Scottish Government? We have heard concerns from teacher unions about a workload crisis among teachers, possibilities of changing the length of the school day. We have heard about a lack of teaching supply. We have even heard concerns about the real possibility, as a result of budget cuts and a lack of teaching supply, that children could be sent home as a result of a lack of teaching supply. Can you give a guarantee that that will not happen? We have heard concerns that that might happen later this year. I would be delighted if you asked Councillor Matheson why he has reduced teacher numbers in Glasgow while pupil numbers are rising, because that is an element. I want to have an agreement across Scottish education that provides the best possible situation in terms of teacher numbers and outcomes. That is what I am trying to achieve. You have got to remember in all those matters that this is a resource issue, and resource issues are being borne down on by the Westminster Government. My colleague Mr Mackay is having to manage, along with Mr Sweeney, a budget that is under endless pressure from Westminster. If you are prepared to stand up and argue for more money that can go into education because you have a larger budget, you are well and good. If you are prepared to argue areas of the Scottish budget that should not be spent to put more money into education, your colleague, whoever that is, on the finance side will be arguing that presently with Mr Sweeney, and I hope that he will bring forward those ideas. By all means, put those things in place. What we have actually got on workload is substantial progress over the last year. Instead of talking about it in the empty way that I have heard from you and your colleagues, I set up a workload group with the agreement of the EIS, on which the unions were all represented. We produced a major document that has been distributed to every school, and the unions themselves accept that this is the first significant step forward in workload that they have ever had. I will go on doing that. My colleague Alasdair Allan convenes that group. They met recently and came to a agreement about further actions that they needed to take to drive forward the issue of workload. We are taking significant action to assist Scottish teachers with their workload. I would suggest that, if you have not already done so, you look at the evidence from the teaching unions and parents organisations around the issue of workload. If you think that the issue of workload has been addressed, then I do not think that you are in touch with what is happening in our classrooms. I meet the teaching unions every few months. I am meeting the EIS again this week. We always talk about workload. We always reflect on the progress that has been made. The reflections report on CFE dealt with workload. We are making substantial progress. The unions say that we are making substantial progress. Local authorities are under pressure. Education services are under pressure. You mentioned local authorities sharing services. Are there any suggestions where local authorities should be making savings in terms of education that you would suggest? I am keen to see innovation from local authorities in terms of how they deliver. Stirling and Clackmannan have a joint education department. That spreads the load in terms of what the expenditure takes place. Regrettably, that is the only one. I saw the questioning this morning where Mr Adam raised the issue of shared services across local authorities. That has not gone forward in the way that it might do. That is one area. However, there are some other interesting innovations that are taking place in education. Actually, Scottish education is full of innovation. You would have seen at the weekend an account of the virtual Alan Glens that is being set up to look at science education in Glasgow. I think that is useful. You would have seen the work of Glasgow—maybe you did not see it—but you would have seen the work of Glasgow Caledonian University in encouraging a coming together on the issue of advanced hires. There are a lot of ways in which people can share and pool resources, not just to take away to share the cost burden, but sometimes to get something that is greater than the sum of its part. I would commend the Glasgow Caledonian initiative as being fascinating in terms of the highest possible educational outcomes for people setting advanced hires. There are lots of possibilities. I would encourage an imaginative approach to delivering education in Scotland. I will be a friend of that where it takes place. Certainly there is much room for improvement on the agenda of shared services, but it is not something that the Scottish Government can compel local authorities to do. We can ensure that any barriers to shared services in collaboration and co-operation are removed and that the conditions are there for further shared services, not just in education, but across the broad range of council services. In fact, if savings were realised in other departments, local authorities could choose to redirect savings to the education budget if they so chose. There has been some progress in some shared services in terms of out-with-education roads or waste, for example, and some within education. I think that local authorities have to look more imaginatively at the shared services agenda. Some years ago, Mr Bibby's own area in the west of Scotland was the Clyde valley collaboration, where eight local authorities worked together. Huge spending power, huge capacity for shared services that were identified, but very few work streams went forward. That was not the actions of the Scottish Government or anyone else for that matter. It was the decision of those leaders to determine what goes forward and what does not. There are no barriers to shared services, but audit agencies have said the same. Governments provided the conditions to progress with that. We could realise further savings in local authorities and other public services if there were greater shared services. That is partly where community planning comes into play, by aligning resources, by working together, by maximising the spend of the public sector at a partnership level. We can do more with the same resource. That is the challenge with the existing resources that we face and the Westminster-based budget reductions. Parents, groups and others are right to identify shared services as one potential way forward, but there is nothing stopping local authorities, merging management structures, focusing on procurement and best practice. Getting on with that, we have provided a large measure of budget protection that other parts of the Scottish Government's expenditure have faced. I think that it is imperative that local authorities support the agenda in a way that some opportunities have been missed in the past, but it is a matter for them. If we start to compel, we can guarantee that it will not work. It has to be organic from the local authorities to choose what works best in their local areas. We have started with opening statements, which suggest that in 2007 we reached a year zero where education was going to hell in a handcart. We were then treated to the usual narrative that it is all Westminster's fault, to which we have added councillors Matheson, McCabe and even Neil Bibby to the list of culprits. However, I just have made clear that, in their evidence, new burdens have been placed on councils. The welcome advances that have been put forward in relation to childcare provision have no doubt created new burdens. The financial memorandum surrounding those extra childcare provision was absolutely hammered by the finance committee. The issue around some of the capital provision in that is called into serious questions. Do you suggest that the Government, in this respect, has placed additional pressures on local government, or do you think that that, too, was perhaps the fault of Westminster councillor Matheson, McCabe or Neil Bibby? I will certainly take this point up in terms of negotiation when the Government or the Parliament commits to a policy that has a burden on local authorities. We negotiate with those local authorities through their umbrella organisation, COSLA, to arrive at the global sum and then distribution as to how that is shared with the individual local authorities on whatever basis is deemed appropriate. Surely it would not surprise Mr MacArthur to know that sometimes local authority will produce different figures to Scottish Government because we are in a process of negotiation and sometimes those cycles are at a different stage. We have different methodology, we will have a different approach and some of it may well be each side trying to ensure that their interests are protected, but what matters is that you reach a resolution and you deliver the policy in areas such as free school meals or childcare or whatever it happens to be. We reach that resolution in partnership with local government, crucially we agree it and then we agree the distribution methodology as to how it is shared across the country to achieve the purpose. In any negotiation there will be a difference, people will pitch for the best that they can get naturally and that might sometimes lead to some friction, but I can say that the style of our negotiations is night and day from what local government enjoyed from any previous administration and it is in that spirit of partnership following on from the concordat that is ensured that we have settled at a figure that will ensure that these policies are fully funded. They are new burdens and they will come with new resources to ensure that they are delivered on the ground. I am listening to that, as I reminded of the words of the former North Rhianforrest and Derby manager Brian Clough, where we all discussed it through and then we agreed that I was right, but the other issue that Larry Flanagan raised last week was in relation to where the government's priorities are. For any government to determine that the Scottish Government has placed a priority on a council tax freeze, and as Larry Flanagan pointed out last week, that places additional pressure on local authorities. It also reduces by a considerable amount, the amount that the Scottish Government has to fund whether in education, health or any other area. In a sense that is not the fault of Westminster, that is not the fault of councillor Matheson McCabe or indeed Neil Bibby, but that is the pressure that the Scottish Government has adopted through its own political priorities and then in consequence has a bearing on where you have money to spend and not to spend. Mr MacArthur is right, it is a policy choice with a mandate of course from the Scottish electorate to deliver it. I think put the £70 million compensation into perspective of a budget, a grant of over £10.8 billion to local authorities. Of course, if a local authority chooses not to, they do not have to freeze the council tax, but they will not get the compensation so to do and I think that is significant. Of course, some of those local authorities would have proposed not to increase the council tax for good reason anyway to try and protect hard pressed households, but the overall budget settlement that is given to local authorities I am convinced has protected front-line services from the worst ravages of Westminster reductions and you can see that difference south of the border. I simply make that comparison for information that south of the border there is compulsory redundancies, reductions in service and a council tax increase and removal of some of the reductions that have helped the most vulnerable and that takes us back to the deprivation point again that it is important to have quality school buildings and quality education, but if children are brought up in a cycle of deprivation, it certainly does not help with educational achievement and attainment and in terms of those policy choices, we have obviously protected health as we stated we would do in the manifesto and then next we have protected local authority budgets and I say again that the local authority budget will grow in cash terms yes with new burdens but largely relating to education. I am not denying those cost pressures, of course there are and of course there are consequences but I think that the Government has to get will take responsibility but some credit for making the kind of decisions that ensure that more pupils are in good quality buildings and with protected front-line services in very very difficult circumstances. You mentioned the point about sanctions in relation to local council tax freeze. The sanctions that were also in place in terms of holding to teacher pupil numbers have been lifted. If the logic behind lifting them in relation to the latter is sound, would you see in visit circumstances where lifting the sanctions in relation to the council tax freeze? They have not been lifted, they have been suspended while we have the discussion about, well it is an important difference. It is not a semantic difference to see the difference between the definition of lifted and suspended, it is quite clear. They have been suspended while we have the discussion over outcomes. The letter of agreement makes it quite clear that if there is no agreement on outcomes then the sanctions will continue. They have not been lifted, they are not going to be operated while we have this discussion but they applied to this year. Of course we have been quite prepared to be generous and flexible in these matters because we have worked in partnership with local authority to preserve teacher numbers and we have succeeded in doing so in the last three years after very difficult period up until then. That is the reality of where we find ourselves. I am sure that Mr MacArthur and Mr Bibby support localism and Liberal Democrats and Labour councillors and their leadership in cosplays, demanding that we follow this very course of action that they want to focus on outcomes, not specifically the inputs of teacher numbers. We think that it is valuable and important but if we can look at the kind of flexibility and see where that gets us to, absolutely the arrangements will stay in place unless we reach an agreement that has all the criteria of success and agreement that has been laid out in that. But I point out again that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are saying something completely difficult in local government that they say in this Parliament. The sanctions, I have to say, in relation to the councillor tax-freeze and the gun to their head is not supported by COSLA or local authorities either. Go ahead, George Adam. Thank you, George. Good morning, cabinet secretary and minister. I think that any SWT set the narrative for this debate when they said near information that they submitted to us. The draft budget of the Scottish Government is in the context of Westminster Government's flawed economic strategy of ideological driven cuts to funding. That obviously gives us challenges that we have to face because we have accepted the result on September 18 and we are moving on as the Government of Scotland to deliver for the people of Scotland. So when you ask everybody, we have had evidence from the national parent forum of Scotland, Ian Ellis said that it is having 32 councils the best way forward for education. He is asking that question. ADES have said that ADES have developed a range of ideas that suggest a system wide change provides a more sustainable approach. They have mentioned that as well. We have talked about some of the shared services as well. I am aware of the Clyde valley model, which was much touted during our time as councillors. Minister obviously did not come to fruition. Everybody is talking about let's have the conversation, so why aren't we having the conversation about finding a radical other way to deliver and make sure that shared services work? I think that the Government has been very clear that we want public authorities and local authorities to be free to work across boundaries. The boundaries are arbitrary. If you were to design local government, nobody would design it the way it is right now. It is a construct of previous Tory gerrymandering, but the energy and years and court battles that it would take us to redraw local authority boundaries, I don't think, would be worth the effort when all our focus and energy should be on productivity and the outcomes that really matter rather than boundary disputes. Local authorities can work across those boundaries. We have made that very clear. There is an imperative to do so. The commission on strengthening local democracy suggests more councils and more councillors, not fewer councils and fewer councillors. The Government's response will continue to discuss with COSLA and other key stakeholders, but it has been the case that we propose no boundary changes to the local authorities, but we absolutely want to support that drive for change in terms of new ways of working, how we conduct our business, how we share services, how we procure services, and indeed how we involve people. Of course, there is further work that will be forthcoming in the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill in terms of empowering our communities, but that structural change that is suggested is not proposed in terms of changing council boundaries, but there is nothing to stop directors changing management structures and how local authorities work with each other. I think that that is very empowering, but we would of course look forward to the committee's conclusions and recommendations on some radical thinking, but I can inform Mr Adam that COSLA has not brought to the table the restructuring of education along the lines of herd and evidence as yet, but that is not to say that such a discussion cannot be had. There is a great freedom within Scottish Education to innovate and to create different structures. There is no one-size-fits-all in Scottish Education that is absolutely untrue. There have been some interesting proposals in recent years, for example the East Lothian proposal of having a hub structure in order to develop local responsibility in education. I am very keen to encourage innovation in delivery, particularly innovation delivery that can continue to drive up attainment whilst at the very best, at the very least restraining costs and possibly doing it more efficiently. So I am very keen to see that happen. This committee in the last parliament spent some time looking at structures and came to a not very significant conclusion I have to say, not for one to try, that there wasn't any silver bullet in terms of educational structures that would produce better outcomes for young people and that is what we should judge things by, by changing structures. But I do think that there is lots of scope for experimentation and for different models to develop and I would be very keen to see them happen. The Conservatives have published a booklet recently, some of which I think to be various mince, but some of which I think has some germans of good ideas in it and I think we could very easily see a bit more innovation taking place and we should encourage that to take place and I would be happy to encourage that to take place and we should be open to it but it would be greatly strengthened if this committee in the parliament across parties, just as we did with CFE, when CFE was difficult across parties were able to find a way forward, was able to encourage that innovation. Just to another point when we are talking about engagement with the parents in particular, one of the things that came up at last week's evidence was the fact that parents felt as if they were an afterthought in the budget process with local authorities and I know that can be quite challenging coming from a local government background as well, I know it can be quite challenging to be able to give the information when you need to do it but they felt as if they were in it an earlier stage they could actually contribute an awful lot more. I think it was Ian Ellis again that says council should get into conversations very early with parents and be up front with them so that they could understand what was coming forward and I know from my own experience it was something that we also did as well after we learned a few lessons but it was a good thing to do and obviously if parents are still saying that we've obviously still got some difficulties. I think that that's a very fair point, a good local authority that's embarking on a comprehensive consultation exercise with choices is good practice but it's still not necessarily empowering because the parents or the pupils or indeed the staff have to have to wait to be consulted with. The community empowerment bill will change that and practice could already change now but that will empower communities to be able to initiate engagement and consultation on their terms rather than necessarily wait for individual authorities to consult them so that's quite empowering and then allows that new mechanism of engagement but that's the best authorities will engage early and offer people choices and then reporting that in a transparent way. Of course the danger is then some people might misrepresent the choices that have been offered I would suggest and that's not helpful when trying to have a free debate around what matters and what's important to parents and then they can make some choices over others and I think that's very healthy for local authorities to make the right decisions. Thank you. Although I don't usually walk away from our army I'm not really looking for one today I'm actually looking for a bit of help in order to understand this and I hope as a member of this committee that I can't contribute to some radical thinking along with my colleagues and can I just put it on the record that you know we do want to work with government I think at the end of the day we all want the same thing we want pupils in Scotland to get excellent educational outcomes. First of all I find the number of teachers of course it's helpful but it's not the answer to everything as a member for the Highlands and Islands there's some schools with 11 pupils and one teacher now that sounds wonderful but if you think 11 pupils in the classes range from one to seven and that one teacher has to you know so I want to get away obviously teachers are important but it's not the only answer. Can I say to both of you I'm very pleased that you are working up agreements with COSLA because that's what I'm looking for and as a member of the audit committee and this committee my problem is in the audit report and I have to quote there has been no independent evaluation of how much council spend on education and what this delivers in terms of improved attainment and wider achievement in the same report no consistent approach to tracking and monitoring the progress of pupils it's not to say it's not being done but it's just not consistent between P1 and S3 and please don't think I'm asking for more testing I am not on page 19 of the same report S2 pupils performed significantly worse against the standard expected for numeracy between 2011 and 13 and the same for primary and then just a final point where I'm beginning to get something on attainment over the 10 years 2014 to 13 16 local authorities improved and 16 didn't so what I know there's not one little magic bullet but what I'm trying to say ask to make a reasonable contribution to this debate is are you aware of where spending needs to take place within education where should that spending be focused in order to achieve the best outcomes for our pupils yes and I think that's a very helpful contribution and I want to be very positive about it because you've picked up two areas in which we need to do more work right now I mean I don't think I said that about that the report was a very helpful report in that regard the correlation between spending and outcomes is not clear enough in education now there is to some extent the inevitability of that because of the system in which we have and a system an education system in any country particularly one of the history of education as long as ours has grown up over a long period of time and you know we started with the system of parish schools and what we've got now is that local accountability but the local accountability is written much larger in local authorities and that's quite difficult because it doesn't allow us to focus sometimes as closely down as we should focus down on knowing what is happening so I think we need to do both more on both those areas now the context in which we do it however we need to understand clearly because there are things we know now we didn't know two years ago first of all we do have a system of tracking and monitoring of individual pupils which accrues to schools through three things through the inspection regime now we can talk later about how that works and whether we need to do more and how we do it through the national examinations that we have which you know give us both in an individual and collective basis an understanding of how pupils do and through things like the surveys of literacy and numeracy which we have you know by annually those give us an indication senator first to do both for individual pupils for schools for local authorities and for the nation as a whole the services of literacy and numeracy is a little different in that regard of what it gives us pizza then gives us a bigger picture you know which shows us not in direct comparison of the nations because that's a slight misunderstanding of what pizza does but it shows how education is developing and changing over a period of time and where the broad correspondences are but it's not possible in pizza noise it designed to be an exact comparison nation to nation so there are all those things in place but we needed to drill further down into that and what we've been doing with the attainment partnerships and I'm launching another stage of that later this week on on Thursday is to go right down into the areas where we know there are difficulties and be able to to to attack those in terms of individual pupils now those include let me take an example in North Lanarkshire which is a good example of the bells hill in bells hill in the s5 cohort there they knew that the attainment of the local authority average in terms of passes at higher was lower than it should be but you're dealing there with and i'm sorry about this explanation slightly lengthy but it is important computer you're dealing there with a comparatively small number of pupils in fact a very small number of pupils in in that cohort so by taking that as one of the areas in which you know you need to improve and you need to improve for those individual pupils because they need to get more passes better passes you need to do it for the school you need to do it for the area for the local authority then you can focus down very narrowly on individual young people now when i went to see that improvement partnership they started with just one pupil and said that pupil there has particular difficulties and they turned out to be very simple matter how you she had nowhere to study in evenings so they worked with the family to get somewhere to study in evenings and that began to drive up they then moved on to three ten seventeen pupils and by working with that group they're not only improved their individual attainment they improve their pass rate and they improve the pass rate at the whole school and they therefore benefited the whole of the local authority and by extension the figures across scotland so we are getting much better at that making changes in in microcosm that have big impacts in terms across things so we can do more of that and it is that type of work that we're trying to encourage but it's intensive and expensive work and we need to to work on that now we've got a number of other things we've got the OECD examination of curriculum for excellence which is taking place next year that will be germane to this we've got the publication how good is our school which comes from a the education scotland and that is about self evaluation and Scottish inspection is based first of all on self exhalation and constant improvement we've got also you know the way in which local authorities make sure things happen and we've got something called it's now called insight isn't it it used to be called a senior faced benchmarking tool and sometimes things change all the time and this is really significant and i'd be very happy for members of committee to come and see this where the possibility now exists for us to measure in really some detail in individual schools what is happening and in individual classes and with pupils in schools and to compare it in two ways not just with with the national standard of the local authority standard but to compare it with a virtual school that has the same characteristics and that's important in terms of the impact of the area in which a school sits so we can look at a school increasing the school can look at it not us the school can look at it the teachers can look at it and say are we doing well enough now that's a complex mix of things that are happening and sometimes you cry out in Scottish education for a simple route to change but Scottish education is complex in delivery because of what is accrued over many years and i think all the things that we've got there are taking us forward in attainment now the threat to those is a constant pressure on budgets so if we can do better and more wisely in how we spend money exactly the first point you made then we'll get more out of it. I continue just my final question I take the point you made about individual support and what concerns me and I do welcome the move going forward I think that that's important and thank you for that positive answer but the directors of education in their paper to us today say levels of support support assistance breakfast club study support auxiliaries after school care sports culture leisure clubs may be reduced they're also talking about reviewing vocational options course offerings and links with college and removing management development quality improvement and support now my concern and i appreciate the the pressure on budgets my concern is that before we know exactly what does work and the example you gave me does seem a very positive one but you know before we know exactly what does work and where we should be spending money to get the best outcome these cup packs are happening and you know it concerns me that we're just looking at teacher numbers and not actually looking at the list of you know what i've just given my point is that are we cutting back on the easy options i think lady said last week something about the frills or something i don't think support assistance are frills but you know my concern is that we're cutting back on exactly some of the areas where we should be increasing investment well as i said earlier i think little authorities need to think very carefully how they take forward any changes to the education system i do think that they need to recognise where the strengths lie we're not for example cutting back on vocational education activity we're additional we're providing additional funding you know the the wood commission report which is extensively about vocational education is having additional funding applied to it so i just be cautious about a whole range of those of those things you know i you often see us yes i know i mean i know i'm by no means greatest i'm just saying let's be careful about that because you know we often see proposals as Derek Mackay has indicated which are floated which do not take place sometimes there are different solutions provided i do think that we are pretty focused on the improvement partnership and the attainment work i think we know that works we're not skimping on that in any manner of means we've been very focused on cfe as a vehicle for continually educational improvement and repeatedly i've said to this committee we've found additional resource for that so we are focused on very important things but inevitably where when it is a time of pressure there will be hard decisions to be made i do think what we've seen in improving Scottish education we have seen improving education we need to maintain that improvement and that is the challenge that is the the reimagining we have to do but i also think we know more about what works than perhaps we did even five years ago because of a lot of the thinking and work that we've commissioned and done thank you very much and Colin Beattie thank you very much i'd like to explore some of the comments that have been made in relation to national versus local decision making in terms of the budget for example causala states that local decision making over budgets and service delivery is necessary for the improvement in outcomes others have mentioned the possibility of ring fencing parts of budgets a national set of parameters and i think that someone also referred to whether we need 32 local authorities to deliver education do we have the right balance between national and local decision making in terms of spending for schools i'm hardly likely to say no we've got the balance completely wrong but in all honesty i think broadly it is it's the correct one in terms of what's provided nationally and some of the safeguards nationally as well in terms of assurance and inspection and quality and examinations and qualifications and so on and what's local is the school estate and infrastructure and the deployment staff and of course what's devolved to head teachers through devolved school management budgets as well there's that further layer of devolution as well again within you know the parameters of necessary expenditure so that takes you on to the question of the 32 local authorities and i thought i covered that my answer to mr adam as to even if you were to redesign it and i think there would be many good reasons to redesign local authorities but the energy the commitment the cost in doing so i think it would take our eye off the ball in terms of what really matters and that's that's outcome so the challenge is to be creative to deliver those new ways of working within the existing infrastructure to make an effect change on the ground and you might say but yes the the government or a panel can can recall and reconsider a decision for example around a school closure but it's the exception rather than the norm to ensure that checks and balances are there that the decision has been taken correctly in terms of information and processing so on but as to the the big picture on education i think that the balance is is broadly right from from a local government perspective local authorities of course through COSLA may argue for further empowerment and that discussion will happen others may argue for further centralisation regionalisation or whatever it happens to be looking at some of the evidence that's been presented to this committee but i think we can certainly have a conversation as to what works best but what's precipitated a discussion is the financial challenge that we all face but it's not the case that absolute money connects to outcome or attainment it's far more sophisticated than just that you can imagine mr reedy better ways of delivering that are more effective more efficient and the example in your own constituency by giving this is the new last weight school where you've brought together a lot of community activities into a single building if i remember correctly it's 17% less space but lots of things happening and it's open from seven o'clock in the morning till 10 o'clock at night and it's a more efficient building and therefore the expenditure on a variety of things will be good now you're quite capital to do that but you've imagined a different way of doing things in the community and it's been done i believe that could be done not necessarily the exact model but reimagining how you deliver and perhaps how you make decisions at the local level there it is within the power of local authorities to do that can i make one further point just around finance just a brief point very important school buildings are important as well previously the only game in town was PPP PFI which tied education budgets up and servicing that now there is far more flexibility through government schemes prudential borrowing capital and other ways of delivering new or refurbished schools and that's just an example how we've opened up the opportunities to local authorities to be able to improve their school estate final question mr PD EIS they mentioned that they would like to see a set of parameters that would establish national minimum requirements and i think this is really going back to some sort of national staffing standard do we need a clearer set of national parameters i would require to be persuaded that that would be helpful in all circumstances i can see the argument and it is particularly true where there are areas where people feel that they have got less than they need to get but you know you might find yourself in a straight jacket in certain circumstances which would be unhelpful i've had this conversation of the is i'll continue to have the conversation there are others who who have believed for a long time the national staffing standards is the right way forward i think it might turn out to be a very inflexible way of whereas there will be better and more flexible ways of ensuring continued excellence thank you clear Adamson cabinet secretary um good afternoon now him cabinet secretary minister um in terms of the national performance framework and um part that it please um in education um what evidence is there to demonstrate that this has helped to improve outcomes in schools and how does it inform spending allocations about both the government and local authorities it needs to be seen within the context of all the measures that we employ and i'm sorry to reintroduce complexity here but we have a system that's grown up up over many years and there are many things that drive it it provides part of the framework to allow us to work constructively with local government it it focuses us on shared outcomes so we know the priorities that we have um ministers are charged with with delivering education under the standards and schools act 2000 uh and to secure improvement in the quality of school education it's one of the things that allows us to focus it but there are many other things as well the the performance framework drives the outcome agreements of course it focuses us on things we need to achieve but it does also there are many other things we need to be mindful of course of inspection reports i go back to that we need to be mindful of the priorities the national priorities that we set we need to be mindful of schools own priorities you know because each school has a a degree quite a substantial degree of autonomy and has its own ambitions um you know but if we look at how we've done in terms of education and it also gives us some guide guide to where we are our educational attainment you know where we're maintaining our performance in that percentage of school leavers in learning training or work we're maintaining our performance in that and the positive dedication ones too so even in times of difficulty we need to keep in our mind that these are very important things but it's part of not the complete structure of how we assess things there's a very final important part how young people believe their education is serving them is very important too i mean i am more and more of the view that we need to be in there asking listening to young people and they need to be co-decision makers on how we deliver i i thought yesterday's event that we held that's the planning process of the of the children of the of the children and young people summit persuaded me ever more strongly that's what we should do interestingly um a young lady who had done work experience for jane baxter was there i was very impressed by her now she is more than capable of of saying what she wants to see happen and how she wants to see it so we've got a complex mix of things and that is what Scottish education is about is about making sure that that complexity leads to the richness of outcomes that we want for all our young people thank you the minister spoke about autonomy in local authorities and they have to be able to respond to local circumstances and you know be responsive to the local communities but it was a concern of some of the parents organizations some of the evidence about a lack of transparency and maybe not a full understanding of some of the benefits and some of the areas that you're talking about cabinet secretary it's a some way that the the outcome move toward outcome agreements could could make that more transparent for pupils and for parents there should be i mean i'm a great believer in complete transparency in these matters there is absolutely no point in endeavouring to keep things from people for two reasons one is it's wrong the second one it doesn't normally work so in all those circumstances this should be a transparent process i want to see it as a transparent process and you know Scottish schools parental involvement act 2006 was based upon that transparency and that openness and you know if we need to do more in that we should do more and to connect with your first question around the national performance framework of course that's the menu that's the outcomes and then the indicators that local community plan partnerships choose and recognise which is most important to the area and that's the basis for the single outcome agreement so that's the deal between the local community plan partnership in its public service entirety with a plan for place local place and the deal with government and the asks and combining that it focuses and measures other than say just gdp but general wellbeing really important to a young people in the whole conditions and environment in which they grow up and learn and achievement attainments of course part of that ensuring that young people then go on to successful employment and so on and behind all of that how'd you arrive at at good engagement good involvement with the community and as it happens tomorrow it'll be before the local government generation committee to look how we strengthen the accountability and transparency of community plan partnerships so the community have a greater say in that and can hold people to account not just education but all public services on the subject that you've raised around transparency involvement if people think it's flawed and again shift the balance of power away from the state and institutions to communities to be able to challenge at a point of time of their choosing rather than when someone chooses to consult them and that may help areas where there's friction around lack of proper engagement but not just education right across the whole gamba of the public sector. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, convener. We've already touched upon the subject of consultation and we've heard that some of the parent teacher organisations are concerned about the lack of transparency in setting individual local authority education budgets. Could you outline the process that leads up to the publication of the draft budget and particularly how outside organisations can actually contribute to the discussions on educational allocations? This is out with my pay grade. I have to say that this is a matter for Mr Swinney and I'm in the portfolio, I should have a bash. We're in it at the moment in that Mr Swinney engages with a range of people out with government to make the considerations, presents the draft budget to Parliament of course and then we're in this formal period essentially of consideration and consultation around the budget. That involves the political parties and other stakeholders that they will engage with them and that will include business and trade unions and a range of other people that the cabinet secretary would meet and of course they will then have the debate in Parliament and that's where local members have their say if they haven't already engaged and there's ongoing scrutiny of that process but before all of that it would be for the cabinet secretary to meet people as and when not least in terms of this committee's interest in education local government in arriving at a budget proposition that Mr Swinney presents to Parliament so within that local authorities would be represented through COSLA as to what their budget requirements needs demands however you want to describe it are presented. It has been the case that Mr Swinney has reached agreement with local authorities through COSLA on what's being proposed and that's of course subject to parliamentary approval and what's more interesting I suppose is what's happening at the same time with local authorities because they right now are considering their budgets some may choose to set them early but most will wait until February once Parliament's executed its duties approved the budget the orders made by Parliament to release the cash to set the budget to each local authority and then they formally normally set their budgets in February so it's quite important to understand what's going on of course in the world local government as well as this Parliament arriving at a decision. Budgets are the expression of policy intention and policy activity so to that extent this is an ongoing continuous process you know my published diary indicates how often I meet trade unions which is every three to four months I meet parent organisations I am in schools on a weekly sometimes several times a week basis you know I know the stakeholders intimately now in in this area so that would be a continuous process it is there is also a formal process which John Swinney will lead in terms of consultation which it would depend upon the issue as to whether I would be formally involved in that or not for example on issues of student finance I might well accompany the students if they were having a formal meeting on it another issue is there would be written submissions sometimes on the budget process that's quite common which I would see but would be directed mostly at Mr Swinney and of course there's political and cabinet discussion of the budget which is an extensive process and of course I will be in there arguing for what I believe to be right. Great thanks you're awesome. Thank you. Can I ask a question that came up last week you were aware in the evidence last week we had an exchange with our witnesses on ASN additional support for needs and the evidence given the comments made were about the cuts to ASN but we know that from the figures that ASN staff have gone up by 8 per cent over the last few years and I just wondered if any comments on that and whether you could perhaps if you're able to explain the rather confusing issue about the number of pupils who are so categorised as being what have been necessary in receipt of this additional support I mean I think that the rights and we have given to parents and pupils and this are significant you know and tribunals and other things do give a clarity this but let's just see if we can bear down on numbers prior to 2010 only pupils with certain plans certain specified plans or who were attending a special school were recorded as having additional support needs that doesn't mean to say that they didn't get help but they were recorded formally in that circumstance in 2010 I was extended to anybody who was receiving additional support you didn't have to have to have the plan or be in a special school so there was a large increase since 2010 because we've widened the definition and that was the right thing to do additional staff are in there but there are legal rights now and you know strong legal rights so I don't believe that this is an area in which local authorities even if they were minded to cut these would be able to do so because of the rights that can be expressed and are expressed by parents I'm always looking to find ways to continue to help those who have most difficulty with learning but I do believe in this area we have worked very hard to make it make it happen you know 95% of those pupils learn in mainstream schools and that's very positive and I do recognise that the unions you know have an argument that they must be supported as well as possible the teachers in those mainstream schools and we try and do that as well yeah but you recognize the exponential rise in the number of children identified in this category and I'm just wondering given the the comments you've just made cabinet secretary about the rights and the legal rights that parents and pupils now have in this area whether or not I mean is there any kind of thinking or hint that that is what is driving the increase in numbers not that there's been a change that there's more people's needing this there's greater awareness I mean you will find in any issue where you know focus is put on that issue where there is a raising of the profile of that issue where legislation exists to that issue there will be a raising awareness from parents that this is an issue which their child is addressing and which they want help with what we have to do and our ambition should be and we continue to have that ambition to make sure that parents get what they are seeking and what young people need without the difficulties that sometimes exist in their way and that's what we are trying to do an additional support for a learning act 2004 of which was amended of course and we make an annual report to parliament we are making progress on this but of course there's a heightened awareness thank you very much for that final questions from Liam McArthur thank you convener this is slightly off the the beating track for this morning in terms of school education it is within your pay grade if you are you but it's not it's not in relation to school education so if you need to write to the committee obviously that is entirely appropriate it's in relation to higher education student support looking through the budget I know the net student loans advanced is 468 million this year and in 2015 2016 but the cost of providing student loans that the the ramp charge has lept from just over 180 million to 302 million and I'm just wondering whether that 302 million does actually represent the cost of providing the student loans I think I need to write to you about this the official who I work with on this Andrew Scott needs to give you the full explanation of this so if you will allow me to write to the committee I'm happy to give you a detailed answer and if there are still questions I'm happy to meet you to discuss it further that's that's very helpful I mean I think in terms of writing back to the committee it'd be helpful perhaps I mean I understand from the student support stats that the ramp charge on loans is around 29 pence which would suggest loans advance around 1 billion now clearly I don't think anybody's arguing for that but where I think NUS are quite clear is that there's a case for changing the terms and conditions either raising the threshold closer to what applies in England and Wales at 21,000 as opposed to 16 17,000 and a payback period of perhaps 30 years as opposed to 35 years so I think in that context if you could perhaps provide the committee with your thoughts on the record what Fiona has helpfully given me here and then we'll have it expanded on which is that the 120 million increase in the cost of providing student loans the ramp charge as a result of the consequentials arising from the 2010 UK spending review when higher tuition fee loans were introduced in England now that takes us partially there but I think we need a full explanation I think that explains the genesis of it it doesn't necessarily explain whether or not that's the support we will we will write to the to the committee and if there's any further questioning to be had I'm happy to meet the member or other members of the committee so okay that's very helpful thank you very much and can I thank you cabinet secretary and the minister and officials of course for attending this session this morning that concludes our oral evidence on the draft budget we will of course report our findings to the finance committee in due course and can I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave. Our next item is consideration of three negative statutory instruments they are convener of the school closure review panels Scotland regulations 2014 that's SSI 2014 262 members of a school closure review panel Scotland regulations 2014 SSI 2014 263 and Royal Conservatoire of Scotland order of council 2014 SSI 2014 268. Members have a paper from the clerk setting out the purpose of the instruments the delegated powers and law reform committee consider these instruments and had no issues to draw to our attention. Do members have any comments they want to make on any of these instruments? No? Okay therefore are we agreed not to make any recommendation to the Parliament on any of these instruments? Yes agreed thank you very much. As the committee has agreed to hold the next two items in private I now close the meeting to the public.