 Felly, ddweud ynghylch, a ddweud y cwrs-deidydd Cymru yn 2015, unrhyw ddweud y ddweud yma, sy'n qurwm, yn gystafellurau eich cyffredinol. Rydw i ni'n ddweud yma ym 3, ac mae ydych chi'n ddweud yr angenrhyw apeth yn gyfwyl. Felly, rydw i ni'n ddweud? Rydw i ni. Llywyddyn McArthur yn ddych yn ddweud, wedi cael ei bod yn rhaid i'r ddefnyddio'r cyflodau ac rydw i ni i ni i ni yn dweud i ni'n rhaid i ni'n ddweud. Ond, hefyd, maen nhw, byddai'n gwybod i'n gwybod i gyd. Fodd rydw i'r gwaith yn y gwrthoedd o'r agenda ar y dyfodol y byddai'r cymdeithas ymgyrch o'r cymdeithasau'n cydwyr o'r cyllid ymgyrch yn y llwyddiadau'n cydwyr. Felly, rydw i'n gwybod i'r cymdeithas dr Alice Rowland, Ynysgwyr ddiolch yn Gymdeithasol i'r llwyddiadau i'r llwyddiadau i'r llwyddiadau i'r llwyddiadau i'r cymdeithas. gyda Aren gained a learning statement that you want to give us? As you've mentioned, I've got Leslie Brown in our range here from Education Scotland, Colin Spivey with the Scottish Government's Learning Directorate and I need to bat some questions for further detail along to them, as usual. I'd like to thank the committee for taking such an evident interest in the subject and welcoming the opportunity to discuss the issue of attainment of school pupils with sensory impairment. The Committee will be aware of the addition support for learning Act in place�s education authorities under duties that are offered to issue and review the additional support needs of pupils. This support is tailored to the individual needs of children and young people that are in99 schools, coupled with a personalised learning offer through for excellence, which supports our aim of all children and young people making the most of the educational opportunities that are available to them to enable them to reach their potential in learning and in life. The committee will have noted that the position in relation to learners with hearing impairment is improving. In particular, it is worth stating that average tariff scores and lever destinations indicate sustained progress. Visually impaired attainment has been sustained and that we will continue to focus our efforts on securing sustained improvement. I know that you have also had a chance to see for yourself some of the excellent practice at Craigie in Windsor Park schools. The professionalism and dedication of staff in these and many other establishments is evidence and evident and should be applauded. There is much good work going on, I believe, convener, in local authorities across Scotland against the background of a tight financial position and competing priorities. In addition to all that, we provide direct national funding, for example, to the Scottish Sensory Centre called Scotland and the Royal Blind and Donaldson Schools. All of that said, we do recognise that there is still significant room for improvement. The committee has heard evidence already from experts in the field, and I am aware that issues have been raised among others around support data, training of staff, inclusive education and transitions. I will look carefully at the evidence that the committee has collected and any recommendations that it makes that would improve the lives of our pupils. I am very happy to respond to any questions that members might have. Thank you very much for that, minister, and thank you for attending today. We are just going to go straight to questions, if you do not mind, and we will start with Chick Brodie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I want to just go back less than a minute when you said that the local authorities are doing good work and we had that there are some good authorities and some bad authorities, local authorities in terms of how they approach the issue of the pupils with impairment. We also heard from the Scottish Sensory Centre, East Wemfordshire Council, but in some cases those with an impairment are doing as well if not better than those with no ASN. I wonder if you can, given the focus that there is on the scale and the attainment gap between pupils generally but between sensory impaired pupils and other pupils, I wonder if you can indicate how you see us being able to close that gap as far as sensory impaired pupils are concerned. That is the first question, the second question is why do we have situations like East Wemfordshire Council and some good authorities and some not so good authorities? Can we do to bridge the gap between them? The first thing to be said is that, as you have indicated, the attainment gap between sensory deprived young people and other people is clearly real and one thing that we do know, however, and I mentioned it and touched on it, is that the situation is definitely improving, real as the gap still is, but the attainment is certainly improving amongst the pupils that we are talking about. For instance, the average scores for deaf school leavers have increased on the tariff scale from 225 to 289 between 2009-10 and 2012-13 and for visually impaired school leavers from 161 to 241 over the same period. I do not mention the statistics to take away from the point that you are making, which is that the gap is real and it is a gap that we seek to do something around. In terms of what the Government is doing to try to address that, well, there are a number of agencies that are funded directly by the Scottish Government with the view of achieving just that, not least the Scottish Sensory Centre, which gets a grant of £150,000 for 2014-15 and 2016-17. That seeks to support teachers of deaf and of visually impaired pupils and deafblind pupils. The other thing that we do in terms of direct funding to address the problems that you mentioned is providing funding to call Scotland, which gets a grant of £367,000 for 2014-15 and 2015-16. That seeks to provide assistance through the provision of assistive technology and other interventions that can seek specifically to address the gap that you mentioned. That is very important. As RF has shown, yes, there has been an improvement, but why is there no consistency in closing that attainment gap across local authorities? Of course, as you may be tired of hearing Education Minister say this, but it remains true nonetheless that the education authorities are the local authorities in question. That does not mean that the Scottish Government has no responsibility in this area, but it is for the education authorities to assess how best they wish to deploy their resources. There are a number of things that I have mentioned that the Scottish Government does at the national level, but the legal authority still rests with the education authorities. I am going to look with your permission to officials here to say if they want to say anything more than what I already know, which is that Education Scotland seeks to promote good practice between local authorities and to share that good practice. Education Scotland's inspection evidence points to the also being an improving picture across inspections done right across all sectors and specifically in relation to the establishments that are around for sensory impaired young people. In addition, our inclusion team works very closely with local authorities on where authorities have particular matters that they want to improve on. They come to our organisation and we work with those authorities and with specific schools to help to support their practice, and we have a strong track record in taking that forward. I just want to ask one last question. Clearly and rightly, we have been focusing on attainment and those with sensory impairment, but what we have not done is at this stage, because I would appreciate your views, to look at the positive destination in terms of how we can affect meaningful transitions to employment and, indeed, to further education. I wonder if you have any views that you might express on that matter. Clearly, transitions are very important in all of this, and I have seen from the statistics that, for instance, young people with sensory impairments have traditionally been overrepresented in the further education sector when it comes to transitions from school to school leavers, and they have done very well in that sector. Where they have been underrepresented have been in terms of going into the world of work directly from school and into higher education. On all those fronts, it should be said, however, that the figures have been improving. I have mentioned some statistics, but it is worth pointing to the statistics around transitions. For instance, for leavers with a hearing impairment, those with a transition into higher education have gone up in the past four years from 12 per cent of that cohort to 20 per cent. Those going into work have gone up from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. There are slowly improving pictures there, but I concede that there is a great deal still to be done. Just a small supplementary question. Given the large proportion of people with a sensory impairment who go on to further education, is there any further work done on the transition beyond college to see whether those students are going on to work or go on to university? Do we have any statistics beyond that transition from school? I may call for help on that one, but I can say that one of the things that I think is close to all of our hearts and all of this is to make sure that whether it is people who are visually impaired or people who are deaf or people with any other disability find their way in college, particularly in the further education sector, into courses that are leading them purposefully and helping them purposefully to achieve the career ambitions that they have and that they are not merely pushed from one course to another, we need to make sure that we respect the right of those young people to have the courses that they feel will lead them into employment. In terms of whether there is data held on transitions beyond college and university, my impression is that there is not, but I may be corrected. Excuse me, I am not aware of any data at this stage, but I am just going to say that in terms of developing the young workforce work that Education Scotland and the Government are involved in at the moment, that we are about to launch new national standards on work experience and careers education, and those are going to be launched for feedback with a specific focus on equalities. In addition, scoping work is already underway to identify how best to support young people and specifically young people with sensory impairments into the world of work and also to support the needs of practitioners, teachers and employers, and that work has begun already. I have a couple of other specific examples around that. The Scottish Funding Council funds Enable Scotland to deliver a transition to employment project, which specifically focuses on this area. There is also a publication called Partnership Matters, which describes the roles of agencies in supporting ASN students to move various points of transition from school to college and from college or for higher education into employment. That is a 2009 publication, but it is due to be updated this year. You mentioned earlier that those with either a hearing or a visual impairment were, statistically speaking, overrepresented in the further education sector. If it is not proof, is it at least suggest the idea that those particular young people are being put on the college courses perhaps not for the correct reasons and, effectively, are doing what you just said yourself, going from college course to college course rather than going off to a college course for a purpose to then move on into the world of work or move on to higher education? Well, for instance, if you look at the figures over the last few years, I hasten to add that many people, whether they are visually or otherwise impaired or not, are going to college for the right reasons. But I think that it is interesting to see that there has been a slight levelling off and that the numbers have been getting better for people going into work and, when I say better, more like the cohort of other young people and also in terms of going to university. I think that it has to be said that there is obviously a great change happening, as people know in the college sector. One of the reasons for that change is to ensure that young people, whether they have a disability or not, feel that the courses that they are on are likely to lead them into work. I think that there is a better sense of that. In spite of the period of great change that we have gone through in the colleges, there is great evidence that people with disabilities are continuing to make use of the college sector. In fact, the percentage of young people going through our colleges with a disability is higher now than it was. It has gone up from 19 to 22 per cent in the past three or four years. People with disabilities continue to make use of college, but I would like to think that, based on the point that you have just made, that they feel that they have the same choices as other young people and the same choices about work when they come out at the other end of college. In my question, there is no way to denigrate the quality of the foundation sector. However, there is a risk that young people with a sensory impairment have been put into college courses for the wrong reasons. It is not to denigrate either them, their parents, their teachers or the colleges, but they have been circulating in the college sector rather than getting on and getting out into the world of work. It seems to me that it has been suggested by others before now. Young people, whether they are visually impaired or whether they are deaf people, have anecdotally suggested that they have felt that they were not given the choices that other people were in the past. If there is one final question before I bring in Mary Scanlon, you mentioned earlier the statistics about the increase in attainment for those with a sensory impairment. Could you give us a comparison between those statistics that you gave earlier and the general statistics for the population as a whole? Are the figures for the improvements for those with a sensory impairment greater, lesser or about the same as the increases for the rest of the population? I think that this is the area of challenge that I indicated before, which is that I will look to my right and left here for the statistics, but the picture is one where the statistics have been improving for those with a visual or impairment or who are deaf, but not quite at the rate as of the overall cohort of young people. For instance, for visually impaired people, it would be compared to the overall cohort. I think that we have the figures for the overall cohort with us, but it is... I do not have the figures for the overall cohort with a set of times. If you do not have them to hand, Minister, perhaps you could write to us afterwards and give us a comparison between those with a visual impairment, those with a hearing impairment and the population generally, so that we can make them. While it is very welcome that there is an increase in attainment among those groups, it would be nice to see a comparison so that we can see whether they are improving at a faster rate or just the same rate or a slower rate than the general population. I can certainly provide that for you, convener, although I am happy to concede that my impression is that the statistics show that the improvement overall has been greater slightly than the improvement for the two groups that we are talking about, visually impaired and people who are deaf. Thank you very much. Mary Scanlon. My questions are looking at the recognition of early identification of sensory loss. We all know that that can have a positive impact and reduce the potential for negative outcomes. Last week's evidence, I think that it was the National Deaf Children's Society, maybe it was a week before, mentioned that the newborn testing that was introduced in 2005, no guidance has been published by the Government in 10 years and there is a fairly ad hoc approach to that across Scotland. It is really just to ask why that guidance has not been published in 10 years and given that many children may miss out on that or may not get the support that they need. Can you tell me what testing takes place with the development check between 24 and 36 months in terms of sensory impairment? Well, as you mentioned, there is a screening programme, the introduction of universal newborn hearing screening in Scotland. It is true to say that the Scottish Government has not published any guidance in terms of the post-diagnostic side of that. Subsequent early-year support and guidance, however, is certainly there. It is something that the Government commits funding to in the form of the support that we give to the National Deaf Children's Society and others. However, the Scottish Government's sensory impairment strategy was launched in April 2014 and that covers both children and adults. It asks that local partnerships are developed to ensure care pathways for people with a sensory impairment. I accept the point about formal guidance and the last officials to say more about that. However, as I said, the fact that the strategy is there is a support to families and to deaf people more generally. The minister's comments that guidance has not been published. We will look in conjunction with health colleagues as to why that is the case. However, as the minister has indicated, there is work on going around that at the moment. It is very helpful. The evidence that we heard would be very helpful if there was Government guidance. The second part of my question, the development check, 24 to 36 months, are sensory impairments included in that check? My impression is that they are, but I will have to ask for advice on that. I do not have the evidence in front of me at the moment, but I am very happy to supply that for you. I do not have the answer to that, but I will write to you about that. Okay. I quite like that as soon as it is very helpful. In terms of ensuring that the minister will fall up in writing, we will chase that up. I would have hoped that they would know that, but never mind. The next question is, how do you check that additional support is being identified for each and every individual child that needs it? How is it identified and supported? For Leslie Brown, convener, she mentioned inspections. I have to say over the past, since 1999, that I have really had a quick look through all the inspection reports for Highlands and Islands. Unless I am missing something, I cannot remember any inspection report saying that there is a focus on additional support needs. Is that a part and parcel part of every single inspection, or is it just not always reported? Every single inspection that we do in terms of early years and school inspections covers quality indicator 5.3, which is meeting learning needs. That has a specific focus on the needs of all young people, as well as the needs of children and young people with specific additional support needs. Prior to every inspection, inspectors are given information on the range of needs of young people in the establishment, whether that is a hearing impairment, a visual impairment, a disability, et cetera. What would happen in an inspection would be that inspectors would follow specific audit trails of those young people to check on whether their needs are being met. That is reported on in the letter to parents in each inspection that we do. That is about meeting the learning needs. What I am really interested in is whether the learning needs are all identified? What happens in an inspection is that we look at how effective the establishment is at identifying the learning needs of children and young people. That is very much part of our audit trails. Does the establishment do the staff understand who the children and young people are, who have identified needs and what steps are they taking to make sure that those needs are being met? That is very much part of our inspection activity. Obviously, if the health check, the development check, which I thought that you would know about between 24 and 36 months, if that does what it is supposed to do, that should inform the process, but you are not aware of it or you do not have any information about it. However, pre-school children would help to inform the process. In early years, inspections are exactly the same as school inspections, and our expectation would be that practitioners would take on board all information available to them about the children and their care to plan for the needs of those children both at the early stages and then in their transition to school. Last week, Education Scotland acknowledged that further work was needed, but never mind to improve the attainment of sensory-impaired pupils. Could you tell us what specific measures you intend to prioritise in that sense? One of the things that is relevant is that it picks up on a point that you alluded to here before. I know that you have raised quite rightly in Parliament before about work at the early stages within families and the whole issue of communication within families, given that 90 per cent of deaf children are born into families where the parents are. I am sorry to have stolen that from you, but I know that it is relevant to the point that you made earlier about support for young families. It is worth saying that the funding from the Government amounting to £281,000 from the Government to the NDCS is centred around the idea of intervening helpfully in those family situations to help to provide the communication skills that are needed for families to support their own children. I would take the question all the way back to the initial point about how we support families from the word go. The final question was no point in putting in an amendment if I am going to have it totally rejected, but it was on Mark Griffin's bill and I appreciate that you are writing guidance. I wondered if, within that guidance, I know that you are not writing it now, I appreciate that, but would you be minded to include within that guidance—forgotten the full title of it—help for families, as well as help for children, given that 90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing families and that their BSL is so much more advanced and better communication within the family? Is that something you would be minded to include within your national framework or whatever it is called? As you mentioned, much of that has not been written yet, but I am open to the ideas on that. I know that working with Mark Griffin on his bill has been very helpful to the Government in that it has made us think about it. A large part of the focus of the bill itself is on the status of BSL as a language, cultural status and status within our society, but it raises bigger issues about the status of BSL and the family. I might ask Colin Spivey if he wants to say any more about that, but I am very happy to be open to ideas about anything that we can do working around the bill that helps the status of BSL within the family as well as wider society. As you have indicated, minister, the guidance is at an early stage of being prepared, and I think that officials would be keen to take on the board any views in conjunction with ministers. Thank you very much for that, Mary. A supplementary from Siobhan? Yes. Minister, you spoke obviously about the numbers in the attainment gap and clearly you give us more detail in writing, but I wanted to know what specific things will the Scottish Attainment Challenge Fund do to address that problem. We know that money has already been allocated for specific authorities, but where will that money go to help the children that we were discussing in this inquiry? Obviously, the focus of the money that you mentioned is around closing the attainment gap more generally, specifically within seven local authorities, but with the potential to extend beyond that. Given what has already been said about the recognition of the fact that within those local authorities children who are visually impaired or who are deaf have an additional reason to be on the wrong end, if you like, of an attainment gap, I would hope that the attainment challenge will ensure that there is an even greater focus in those areas to help those young people. I disagree with anything that you have just said, but given that we are asking for specifics, because that is what we are hearing from the evidence that we have heard in the past three weeks. Now, people are looking for specific examples of how we can work together, we can learn from local authorities who are developing technology and various other things. It would be helpful, if you are right to commit and let us know what specific things that the Government wishes to do to tackle that. We understand that local authorities will have to play their part absolutely, but we go back to Education Scotland and the specific examples that I asked about last week. What specific examples are we doing to challenge the difficulties that people are experiencing today? Obviously, local authorities can, with assistance, help to close the gap and are working to close that gap. Obviously, if you want me to be specific, £100 million is a fairly specific and substantial endorsement of the work of local authorities to overcome the attainment gap. I have mentioned some of the areas in which the Government already seeks specifically to ensure that the attainment gap for this group of young people is closed. For instance, the funding that we have given around assistive technology is something that local authorities might wish to consider when they are in the course of considering how to help young people in that situation. They might wish to learn from that or other examples. They might wish to choose, for instance, when it comes to helping young people to overcome their disadvantages, whether they are because of disability or otherwise. They might wish to consider how they spend their money on staffing. They might wish to consider the interventions that they provide and tailor to the needs of individual young people. I keep coming back to the point that local authorities are the education authorities here, but £100 million from the Scottish Government and the intention to work with them closely is a pretty clear sign of our intentions. I will put specific examples on this group. I will go back to the evidence that we heard at the beginning about Enable Scotland and the money that has gone there and the lack of data that we have for people following on from college and others. It seems to me that if Enable Scotland had been working for many years on that, there would be data available on how that money is helping people because you would be evaluating that fund, I imagine. It is about what is already happening and the good practice there and how we are evaluating that, but the specific things that can be done to change, because, as I said, I do not disagree with anything that you have said, but we need more specifics. As I have already considered, I think that we need to have more data around where people with a visual impairment or people who are deaf go after college and university. That is a fair point. However, I would have to say in defence that we do have a lot of data and I have quoted some of it about the learner destinations post school, the transitions post school. I can quote some of the figures, as I said, from the last available year. For instance, for leavers with a hearing impairment, we do know and we collate the data that 20 per cent are going into higher education, 48 per cent going into further education, 12 per cent going into employment directly. For leavers with a visual impairment, we do collect the data that 18 per cent are going into higher education, 49 per cent going into further education and 8 per cent going into employment. I quote those statistics in the full knowledge that, particularly on employment and on entry into university education, those figures are not what we would want them to be. They are improvements in the past, but they are not what we would want them to be. We collect the data for that reason. However, it is a fair point that a number of members have mentioned, which is that we need to perhaps collectively think about how we track this group of young people after they leave college and university. Liam McArthur, do you have a small supplement to you? I apologise firstly for being late. I am sure that you will need no convincing minister of the trials of flight unreliability. In relation to the attainment challenge, there has been a broad welcome for the fact that the challenge has been set up, but concerns raised about an area-based approach, which will exclude a large number of areas, including those that you represent and I represent. In terms of trying to provide the sort of targeted intervention that Siobhan McMahon was talking about, however that is delivered in whatever form, how is that going to be delivered in those areas that fall out with the area-based approach that the Government is taking? Particularly in island areas, where I suspect that there are probably additional costs incurred in terms of delivering more specialist support? I think that there has been an acknowledgement from the Government throughout this process that there is a balance to be struck here. We have to recognise the seven local authorities in Scotland that have an exceptional level as local authorities of social deprivation and all that goes with that. However, there has been an acknowledgement at the same time, as you rightly say, that there will be pockets of poverty within overall affluent local authorities. The Government works very hard with local authorities to reach those groups. There has also been an acknowledgement from the First Minister and others, from the Cabinet Secretary and myself, that we need to do more, to ensure that nobody is left behind in Scotland, not least in the context of what we are talking about today, young people with disabilities. I know that you referred to a number of occasions this morning, that the elements of that will be available to provide targeted support out with those seven local authority areas. As I said, the project that has been described is for the seven local authority areas, so the attainment gap is being addressed in that way. However, there are things in other parts of the country, for instance, the attainment advisers and the focus that will be placed on them around raising attainment. That does not just apply to those seven local authorities, that applies across the whole of Scotland. However, there is no budget attached to that. I understand that that is redeployment of people who are perhaps employing schools at the moment back into local authorities. It will provide a duty that local authorities provide people in those posts. It will place an onus on local authorities to make sure that there is that focus on attainment within their local authority, and it will apply out with the seven local authorities that I mentioned. That is a duty, rather than— It is a duty, and, obviously, the education authorities have certain duties when it comes to education. Thank you. Gordon MacDonald. I want to move on to the subject of workforce planning. We heard evidence that in mainstream schools specialist teachers of the deaf and visually impaired were available for very limited amounts of time, and that was partially due to the ageing of the specialist teacher workforce. Given the lack of new teachers becoming specialist teachers, what steps is the Government taking to try to tackle that issue? That is an interesting area. We need to gather information on where the Government is working on that. The numbers are small, and I am sure that we can point to them. They are, in some cases, very small. For instance, teachers with a main or other subject of hearing impairment, there are—I think that the total is four—have I got that right for 2014? No, it is visual impairments. Is that an increase of four? Yes. An increase of four, so 58 for across the whole of Scotland. Teachers, especially qualified teachers, I think that there are 58 in specialist teachers of visual impairment and around 80 on hearing impairment. That number, as you rightly say, has decreased on the hearing impairment side, but not on the visual impairment side. The numbers are relatively small. There is an interesting question, for instance, around hearing impairment, whether we need to evaluate some of the changes that have taken place medically and culturally about cochlear implants. I do not say that in any way to take away from the importance and the need for specialist teachers, but it would be interesting to establish whether local authorities are changing their practice as a result of that situation or for any other reason. There is no evidence that local authorities are struggling to find teachers in terms of not being qualified teachers available, but we need to think about whether the changes that have been in that area are being reflected or what local authorities make of that. The Scottish Sensory Centre, when it was given its evidence, highlighted that, along with its partner organisations, it has introduced a range of training options, whether it is the mentoring scheme in which senior staff can pass on their specialist knowledge to younger members of staff, creating professional development opportunities or producing online learning demonstrations of best practice. However, what it said in its evidence was that there is no point in the Scottish Sensory Centre in creating those opportunities if local authorities do not allow their staff to access the courses or they do not release staff to take them up. What can the Government do about that if the local authorities are not giving teachers the opportunities to take up? I strongly believe that local authorities would be wise to allow people to take up those training opportunities. I think that there has been an increased cultural understanding that all teachers now need to have an awareness of the issues around deaf and visually impaired children, even if it is only at the level of awareness. I am sure that you have had the same experience as the committee, but the number of deaf young people who have pointed out to me that they wished more of their teachers understood that in order to be understood they could not speak to the whiteboard, they actually had to turn round and speak to the class. I would give that not as a flippant example but as an example that has been brought to me by deaf young people of the importance of local authorities engaging their staff in basic awareness and raising as well as training. Given the small numbers of teachers, the specialist teachers of deaf and visually impaired that you highlighted a couple of minutes ago, should we be incentivising teachers? We heard evidence that there was an absence of any specific reward that a number of years ago did exist and that there appears to be no recognition within the profession for teachers to specialise in teachers at a deaf or visually impaired. Should we be doing something to address that? The career pathways and the promotion incentives are around that. I might defer to Colin Spivey. You are right to say that there are now specific incentives, but the interesting point about that is that there are two sides in relation to the numbers here. There is the supply side and the demand side. As the minister has suggested, Education Scotland would back that up. We are not hearing noises from the system that there are not enough qualified teachers coming into the system. That is from local authorities and so on. Obviously, you have heard evidence that suggests that there may be a bigger picture on that. I think that it would be useful. The minister has agreed to having a conversation with the people involved here, being the employers, the local authorities and also NDCS officials about what the actual position is in terms of supply and demand and whether there are enough teachers in the system. It is important that we properly understand what the full picture is. In that respect, for instance, we are meeting with NDCS officials in June to discuss the issue and a range of other issues. Is it clear that you are confident that we have the right number of teachers in place or that you have no idea whether we have the right number of teachers in place? The more the same is that there is no evidence coming back from the system, either through inspection or what we are hearing centrally from local authorities, that there is a shortage of supply of teachers. However, clearly, the numbers have gone down and we need to understand whether that is just because there is less demand out there or whether there is a real effect or impact that needs to be looked at. One of the things that we are aware of is that the training changed some 10 years ago to a modular approach in delivery. That was with good intention that teachers would be able to take the time out in order to take the necessary qualification. We perhaps need to understand more fully what the impact of that has been and to see if there are any unintended consequences. I think that there is a conversation with all the parties that both those who are employing qualified teachers in those areas and the groups that represent children and young people with sensory impairment would be useful for us to get a fuller understanding of whether there is an issue and what that issue might be. What I was trying to get across has been put across as well is that there is no indication that local authorities feel that they cannot find teachers. There is a debate to be had about whether the right number of teachers are in the system, obviously, but there is no evidence that local authorities cannot find qualified teachers. We are on the subject of investing in the skills and qualifications of the workforce. I would just like to put a question to you, minister, that I have put to the previous panels. That is just to ask whether it is appropriate or acceptable that deaf pupils who use BSL are their only language for them to be taught by teachers who only have a level 1 qualification in that language. I can understand the point that you are making. The more that can be done to promote BSL in schools and, of course, your bill is relevant around some of that as well, the more that can be done to promote wider understanding and use of BSL the better and the more we are likely to see standards going up. For instance, the potential that exists at a small scale at the moment, but the potential that exists for hearing pupils and teachers to be learning BSL within the wider 1 plus 2 language movement, if you like, in schools is a healthy thing. There is a potential for the third language within schools, language 3, in many cases, to become BSL, whether there is a willingness within the school to do that. I think that if we can see some of these cultural changes, we will start to see qualification levels rise. I understand the point that you are making. I understand why a pupil who feels that they are more fluent in their language than their teacher understands the issues that there are around that. Obviously, the case as it stands at the moment is that for a teacher of a spoken language they have to have a higher English, a level 3 qualification, as the qualification of the workforce increases with the Government's intention at all to equalise that in any way, so that the minimum requirements for a teacher of the deaf be a level 3 qualification in the same way that the minimum requirements for a teacher in a spoken language is a level 3 qualification. As I said, perhaps the first issue with BSL is raising the pool of people from which teachers can be drawn. I think that the sympathetic understanding of what the member is saying there is the reality that we have to have a much wider pool of people who are learning BSL from which to draw. I appreciate the point that you are making. I do not disagree with it, but the qualification bar is set at level 1. That is nothing to do with the size of the pool. The bar is set at level 1, and the bar could be set at level 3. That is a decision that could be taken by the Government, I presume, and could change that. The size of the pool, and I know that bars and pools are typical ministerial mixing of metaphors here, but the problem about setting the bar high, of course, when you have a small pool, is that you may find yourself constrained. You have to increase the number of people who are learning BSL, whether to be people who can meet that bar. I understand the point that is being made. Having spoken with and met deaf young people, I can understand the frustration that is experienced by someone who is more fluent in their language than their teacher. Secondly, we have to recognise that this comes back from the point that I made about deaf awareness among teachers. We have to recognise that there needs to be a much broader deaf awareness and deaf training among secondary teachers. For the reason that, in mainstream education, a young person is going to have seven or eight teachers possibly in a day. There is much more that we need to do about that. I may ask again for any views from Colin Spivey, but I do not take away from the point that is being made, which is around the need for fluency. I am not sure that I have much to add on that in terms of the central point being the size of the pool and the approach that we are currently taking is one of expanding the pool rather than seeking to place constraints. I do not know from an edge. I am so clear that I do not want to have misunderstood you there. You seem to have just said there that you do not want to place constraints on the recruitment of teachers. I presume that you were talking about the deaf by increasing the qualification bar. Is that what you just said? I am saying that at the moment there is no intention to change the qualification level. I am rather taken aback by that comment because I cannot think of any other subject in which we would accept that the teacher was less able than the pupil in terms of the ability to communicate with each other. I cannot think of a parent anywhere in Scotland who would find acceptable that their child was more able than their teacher within the public sector education system. Is placing a constraint on the recruitment of teachers by making them sure that they are adequately qualified to teach those children seems to me frankly a bizarre statement to her need? I think that the one thing that I would say is that we are not aware and I think that Education Scotland might have more to say on that as well that there are large numbers of people being taught by teachers at level 1 and therefore that does not necessarily mean that that is the standard situation. Of the teachers of the deaf who are using BSL at level 1 and how many are at a higher level? We do not have that information, we do not collect that information. Will you collect the information and provide it? Yes. Indirectly associated with that we have been discussing. I have distributed an article that was in one of the magazines this week regarding deaf and blind language interpretation and skills, where the Government, Westminster Government, UK Government, had announced that it was delaying putting into place a national register of those that can speak or use BSL and in fact have outsourced that capability to, from the whole pool, I think 1100 people who have the capability at a higher level, including those who have outsourced it, might reduce the standards because the cost is involved. Can we have the assurance that under no circumstances, why are you in the power to do so, no circumstances will we consider using any outside bodies to bring teachers who are subcontracted into our educational system to teach BSL language and that we would consider our national register of BSL teachers who are at a requisite and desired standard? The main point that I would make there is that, to be a teacher in Scotland, you have to be a GTCS registered, so there is no question of the standards around that or the professional expectations around that capability and enable to disseminate. You mean the training of teachers? Are you using the standard? If it is BSL 3, that has to be the standard that all teachers must adhere to. The standards are the ones that we have talked about just now and obviously there has been a discussion about whether they are high enough or not but I am not sure I understand your point about franchising out. I am just saying that that is what is happening down south and what I am saying is that around half are considering leaving the BSL interpreter organisation and I just wonder if that has a knock-on effect potentially. I do not see, although I look for evidence here, any evidence of that being mirrored in Scotland. We do not have any evidence that the same situation has been happening. I just want the assurance that that will not happen. Sir, what will we do? We have copies of the article that Chick Brory is referring to. We will give you a copy at the end of the meeting so that your officials can have a look at that. Yes, but I do not have any evidence that should be said of the situation that is being described as understanding it. Thank you. Liam McArthur. Moving on to the model of education provision, there is a presumption of mainstreaming and I think that intuitively that is something that we would all support and expect to see. However, I think that through the evidence that we have had, there have been concerns raised about the way in which perhaps that is interpreted or implemented is resulting in both those with hearing impairments or sight impairments are not necessarily getting the support that they need at the age and stage that they are at. At the point where they are perhaps needing habilitation skills, the focus of the education system at that stage is on something rather different. Without suggesting that we should move away from the mainstreaming, are there things that the Government can be doing working with local authorities, education Scotland, whoever it may be, to try and make sure that the way in which that presumption is working is allowing enough flexibility to allow the needs of those specific groups to be more effectively catered for? On that issue about mainstreaming, you are right to point to the legal basis, if you like, of that. There is a legal basis to it and the legislation makes clear that, although mainstreaming might be described as the default option, it is certainly not the only option. If it is in the best interest of the child for it not to be the option, it should not be. Local authorities know that and they work within that law. The real question is that, when a child is in a mainstream school with any additional needs, we have to work to ensure that those additional needs are met. At a professional level, teachers have to be able to identify barriers to learning and to make sure that those barriers are overcome. We have come a long way, and we have changed. If you look for instance at the number of deaf children who are in mainstream as opposed to specialist education, it has transformed. We have to ensure that it keeps coming back to the point that has been rightly raised again and again, particularly in secondary, where a child is a number of different teachers in a day. How many of those teachers understand what those needs are? Again, I think that I would agree with what you said, although the problem has identified to us. It wasn't simply in relation to the more specialist subject teaching at a secondary level. One of the examples that was used to us was the earlier years in primary, where, as I say, the skills in developing either habilitation or, indeed, confidence for those with hearing impairments or those with sighting impairments was fundamentally important to giving them the tools that they need in order to assimilate the other learning in the new course. Actually, by mainstreaming them throughout that primary schooling, even with buttressing that a bit in the mainstream, it wasn't adequate to allow those skills to be developed in a way that would allow them to get most out of their learning later in primary and then into secondary. That's certainly true, obviously, as well. By a child being in a mainstream school, in fact, it doesn't mean that that child, who faces barriers to learning, should have the same educational experience as other children and young people. There has to be a tailoring on the part of the school to the needs of that young person. That might mean, for instance, more time one-to-one with a specialist teacher within the school. It might mean that somebody additional being brought in into the class to assist the teacher. It might mean a whole range of options. I think that it should be clear that, because a child is in a mainstream school, it doesn't mean that that child does not get the specialist attention that they need within that school to give them the same opportunities for learning as other children. I don't know if others want to or, with your permission, want to come in on that. The only thing that I would add is that obviously the focus of additional support for learning is about the individual needs of the child. Quite often, there may be a range of conditions that affect a child and the range of barriers to learning. It may be that there is visual impairment, but there are other factors as well. Therefore, there is a requirement for local authorities to look at the individual and very specific needs of each child in terms of devising the appropriate interventions that need to be made. Education Scotland will look at that in terms of its inspections and the type of interventions that are made and whether they are appropriate. In terms of following up on inspections, we have some specific examples where we have worked very closely with schools and authorities to support them to improve their practice in those particular areas. Primary is one example. That is very much the work of our team that would go in to build capacity and to look at what is happening and to put specific interventions in support in place. In response to the earlier question about the demand as opposed to the supply, the message that is coming through from local authorities is that there is not a dearth or a lack of specialist teachers in the system. We have heard, in response to Mark Griffin's question, about the level of qualification that is achieved by those, for example, BSL skills, who are dealing with those whose main communication is through BSL. That may be inadequate in areas, but we just do not know to what extent. I am not entirely clear, given the evidence that we have heard through this process, about problems that emerge at key stages. How effective that challenge function is being through the inspection regime that education Scotland is undertaking, and then the follow-up to it. Clearly, there are problems there, and whether or not it is local authorities saying that we can do this with some additional specialist support in those schools. The consequence of not doing that is having to go down the specialist resource unit, which may be more costly and more problematic for them. In terms of the interest of the child or the individual children, that might be exactly what they need. I keep coming back to this. You make valuable points. There is no reason for us to be complacent about the fact that an attainment gap exists. There is no reason why we should not be seeking to do everything that we can and are doing everything that we can to ensure that that is addressed. One of the areas that we have been working on addressing is around transitions, because I have mentioned a couple of times the transition from primary to secondary, and the importance of ensuring that the environment that a child goes into is one that is appreciative of the obstacles that that child, that young person, can face. The other transition that we have talked about a number of times quite rightly is the transition from school where we have to see improvements. We want to see improvements in terms of access particularly to employment and also the higher education. I would like to explore one or two issues that have come up about the learning environment. A number of organisations giving evidence, including the Scottish Sensory Centre, have talked about the issues around pupils who are concentrating more on academic attainment, and they are mostly doing quite well in that. However, the necessary life skills in creating confidence, effective communication, social skills and so on are perhaps coming secondary to that. There is a feeling that perhaps there should be more emphasis on the life skills and maybe a little bit less on the formal academic qualifications. How do you feel about that? I suppose that one of the things that has come through from the Weed Commission and from many other examinations of our education system is the importance of core skills, not just life skills but core skills that lead to employability, that lead to transferable skills. That applies just as much to young people with a disability as anyone else. However, I appreciate the point that is being made around the importance of giving young people with a visual impairment or who are deaf the confidence that they can apply for a job, the confidence that they can get on in life. There are an awful lot of things being done from very early years to try and instill that confidence, but core skills and life skills are central to what we need. I do not know if you want to say any more about that. Only that part of the approach of curriculum for excellence is to build rounded individuals with life skills, so that is part of the fundamental approach that we take. The other thing, of course, is role models. That does not apply to young people with disabilities, but it applies to young people from lots of groups in society where, for a whole host of reasons, perhaps around poverty or perhaps around historic problems in terms of social deprivation, the importance of providing role models to show that you can get a job in whatever sphere it is. It applies particularly perhaps to people with disabilities that we are talking about who have no evidence to suggest that they are any less able in terms of getting on academically, as you mentioned, than anyone else. However, we need to ensure that they are given confidence and given the choices that everyone else has given about their own future. Just looking literally at the built environment, in England and Wales they have statutory building standards, for example, for acoustics in schools. Do you think that there is a need perhaps for us to legislate or bring in guidance to try and improve the environment in our schools, particularly as there is a considerable new school building programme? It would be an opportunity maybe to incorporate that. Well, this is an issue that the Government is aware of around acoustics in schools, which are an obvious importance for deaf people. Although it is true to say that the legislative regime, if you like, is different in Scotland and England, it is, however, true to say that, for instance, the best practice that is adhered to in buildings bulletin 93, which has guidelines on the issue of acoustics in schools. It is fair to say that it operates under a different kind of statutory regime to the one that you are referring to in England. However, that bulletin has been used in a lot of the new schools that have been built in Scotland. I think that it has informed a lot of the design of our new schools. We have, as you mentioned, a whole swath of new school buildings in Scotland, which have transformed the way that learning takes place in schools. It has also transformed physically the learning environment, which has become more open plan with people perfectly and primarily learning and shared areas. It is important that we get the acoustics right, but, as I said, the buildings bulletin 93 has been made use of. The school premises regulations give certain statutory requirements around school building design and optimising the internal environment. That is intended to assist local authorities with some of the very points that you raised. Do you think that there is a case for legislating in that respect? Has it done south of the border? My question is that the guidance around the bulletin 93 has been produced around that. It has been helpful. It has informed the design of buildings. If you were to start to legislate, you would probably have to then work out where acoustics fitted in with competing priorities around things like ventilation, which, believe it or not, are competing priorities when it comes to a school building. You would have to perhaps rethink something that I think is already there and, to a large extent, already being made use of. I will look at another facet of the learning environment. We have been talking to witnesses about the merits of a centralised teaching approach, where a teacher who is qualified in BSL teaches a lesson that is transmitted to classrooms across the country. That might help to compensate for some of the lack of teachers that we have with BSL. Is an evaluation on that type of centralised teaching being carried out? Is there any suggestion that it might appear on the agenda sometime? There has been some discussion of this kind of approach, for instance, in rural and island schools about the difficulty of attracting specialist secondary teachers to many of the most rural parts of Scotland. The debate is a live one, although in terms of where it fits in around the issue around visually impaired and deaf young people, perhaps the debate about that is at an earlier stage. I do not know if you want to say anything about that. Just to add that Glow provides a platform for delivering that kind of intervention. I am not aware that it is happening at the moment, Leslie, but the technology is there to do some of that stuff. As you say, Glow is available. I am not aware that it is being used at the moment, but our teams are looking for good practice in that area. I am happy to speak to them about ways in which that could be taken forward. One issue that teachers mention quite rightly is that they need to be signposted to where materials exist, whether it is on Glow, online or elsewhere. We need to work together to ensure that that material, particularly in secondary, is easily found for secondary teachers. I think that we need to have some slight caution about that, although I can understand that there may be advantages in looking at that approach. There is a need to consider personalised learning and the individual needs of the child. Some of that might get lost in taking a universal approach. It is not a reason for not doing it, but we need to bear in mind if we are trying that kind of intervention. We take the point. We have had an email as a consequence of last week's conversation. There are caveats that are expressed in mirroring classroom studies, but it is not worthwhile now doing a pilot to look at what needs to be overcome so that we might be able to expand on that nationally. It would certainly be beneficial to at least pilot this and explore the difficulties, but also, more importantly, the opportunities. I think that if you are talking about the centralised—the centralised is possibly the wrong word—using technology, I think that if we are talking about using technology, I think that the important thing is to recognise, as has been alluded to, that the needs of different children and young people are going to be very different from child to child, from young person to young person. I think that there is a great deal that we could do, a great deal more that we can do, in making use of that technology, in making use of materials that are or could be made available online. I would hesitate to use the word pilot, however, because that would imply possibly that we would find some school where this approach could just be applied on a blanket basis. I think that what would be much more useful would be to see nationally, if you like, how much of the material that exists out there online or could be brought into existence online could be signposted to teachers around the country. We had an example last week—it was last week—of one council that clearly is well in advance of others in terms of addressing this issue. Would it not be possible to consider discussing with that particular council the—I will not use the word pilot—at least an examination of the challenges of remote technology use but to have them look at the opportunities? I know that there are examples of local authorities who are good at doing this. I think that what needs to happen and what Education Scotland is busy doing is to make sure that other local authorities know about this, to make sure that that good practice is shared. This is something that I know that you have been involved in and might want to say something about. That is probably the best way forward, to make sure that good practice is not hidden away anywhere in the country, but that all 32 local authorities get to know about it. I am obviously not making myself clear—let me try again. We know that we have to share current good practices across councils and that came out quite clearly in the discussion that we had last week. What we are asking for is the means by which we can explore the use of technology much more beneficially and also, as part of that, to secure the efficiencies that would come from centralised teaching as one element of that. I agree with you that we should be sharing best practice as it stands today. What I am actually asking for is will you consider engaging with this particular council to run a test in exploration of the possibilities of technology in centralised teaching? I am very happy to learn from the experience and speak to any local authority who can provide evidence of that kind. It is a way to question this. As well as centralised teaching using BSL, for example, we have heard evidence minister on the lack of subtitling on programmes that are available for children in classrooms. A number of just basic technological issues, you think, would be relatively simple to overcome, which seem to be causing problems. I think that there is a wider discussion and debate that I agree with you to be had on this, but I am sure that what concerned me certainly was the reaction from the Education Scotland witness last week, who said—I might not be quoting exactly, but he basically said something like, such suggestions were not currently on the agenda, which was rather a flat no to the suggestion that technology had a role to play here. As I have indicated, if there are local authorities or others who have good practice, I am very willing, as minister, to learn from it. Is there a possibility that, for example, such suggestions that this could be discussed in the advisory group that you are going to establish, assuming that the BSL bill goes through and passes stage 3? Yes, as I have indicated to the committee before, one of the most impressive things I think about the bill is that the content of the plans, which will essentially be the bit of the bill that changes things, will be to a large extent very much in the hands of deaf and visually impaired people. They will have a big influence both over the national plan and over the plans at a local level, too. Is there a possibility that ideas like this one, and I am sure that others, could end up in the national plan? Well, certainly if people want to bring forward ideas about ways in which national agencies, Government agencies, can improve what they do, then, obviously, that is something that people would want to discuss on the national advisory board. Liam McArthur, did you have a supplementary? Yes, it is very tangential, but it is on an attainment theme. But not solely those with sensory impairment. Minister, you will be aware of the concerns that have been raised in relation to the recent higher maths exam and the concern among pupils that the exam questions bore little or no relation to the coursework that they have been studying, and they are on up to it now. I know from the correspondence that I have had from constituents that this undermined pupils' confidence in themselves. It undermined parents' staff and pupils' confidence in the exam system itself. It would be helpful if you could offer somebody assurance A that the pupils who have sat that exam will not be disadvantaged as a result of that, and B if there were lessons that could be learned to ensure that there isn't such a disconnect between the exams and the coursework leading up to it next year. I think that that would be very helpful as well. When the member talks about the higher maths he uses, he chooses the word tangential carefully, I take it. What I can say there is that, obviously, ministers do not quite set on mark exam papers. However, the SQA always does, is that it always looks carefully at all exams after they have been sat and looks at all evidence as to whether, in any given year, an exam paper is more or less challenging than in any previous year, and that the grade boundaries are always set by the SQA independently based on their understanding of what the fairest solution is around that. Every year, the SQA always looks at those questions of whether where grade boundaries should be set in order to make sure that the fairest possible outcome has arrived at. I take it from that. As a result of this exchange perhaps and other representations, I am sure that the Government is received on this, there will at least be conversations with the SQA not just about this year because I take your point about the setting of grade boundaries, but what appears to be a disconnect in terms of the exam itself as compared to the subject matter that was being taught in the SQA. I have to stress that we will arrive at these decisions completely independently of ministers. I have to agree with Liam on this one, being a father of a doctor who has just sat higher maths and who feels exactly the same as I think many pupils did that it seemed to be in some questions, at least minister, a test of English interpretation before it was a test of higher maths knowledge. That is one of the questions that has to be addressed by the SQA, but we are strained slightly from the point. I will move on, giving that that was a very personal intervention on my part and that she is sitting behind you, minister, so I can see her face now. I would like to talk about multi-agency collaboration. There is good practice throughout the country and we have heard that news as well, but there has been concerns from the Scottish Council of Deafness that said that newborn hearing screening was positive in recording the hearing loss affecting young babies, but the information was not always shared with the right agencies and shared with the right organisations quickly enough. I was wondering if there is any way to improve information sharing among the relevant agencies, because obviously getting it right for every child and ensuring that we can get the support mechanisms available for the parents and families as quickly as possible is one of the strong messages that has been coming out with families dealing with sensory impairment? Well, I think that it is relevant that you refer there to get it right for every child, which is very relevant to the issue at hand there. I have already mentioned when Mary Scanlon was talking about families and I raised the issue about deaf children and hearing families, for instance, about the need to ensure that different agencies work together to ensure that families do not feel isolated so that families feel that they have sources of information. It is also one of those areas where, despite all the controversy around this that was manufactured in some quarters, named persons will prove to be an important source of information to families when they seek it. Is that you? Okay, thank you. Any further questions from members at this stage? Thank you very much minister. I thank you and your officials for your attendance today. We are most grateful for you taking the time to be at the committee. That concludes our evidence-taking on the inquiry and we will publish a report of our findings and recommendations later this year. I now close the meetings of the public as we move into item 3, which is in private.