 Good morning, and I welcome everybody to the 23rd meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2014. Apologies have been received from Liam McArthur and George Adam, and I welcome Joan McAlpine, who is attending in place of George Adam. I remind all those present, would be mind making sure that all electronic devices, particularly mobile phones, are switched off because they interfere with the broadcasting system. Today, we will continue our discussion on the implementation of the new national qualifications and, of course, the progress that has been made with curriculum for excellence. More generally, I welcome to the committee Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Robertson, director of learning at the Scottish Government and Bill Maxwell, chief executive of Education Scotland. Welcome to you all. We heard evidence last week from a range of organisations in the education sector. Very interesting comments and discussion, I am sure that you will agree. Obviously, that is the main focus of our discussion today for the evidence from last week. Also, I am sure that, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, we asked members of the public to send in questions relating to the subject, and I am sure that we will cover some of those from members as well. We have received quite a lot of questions and comments, we will not get through them all, but we will get through some of them, hopefully. I invite the cabinet secretary, therefore, to get us under way by making some opening remarks. Thank you very much, convener. I am delighted to be able to provide the committee with an update on curriculum for excellence and the new national qualifications. What has been, I think, for many of those in Scottish education, their hardest working year. Let me, if I might, start with a few reflections upon the journey that we have undertaken with curriculum for excellence. As a reminder to start with the fact that curriculum for excellence would not have been devised in the first place without the work of this committee's predecessor. In 2003, the then Education, Culture and Sport Committee took a long, hard look at Scotland's supposed educational primacy and accepted, difficult as it was, that our so-called gold standard system was somewhat tarnished. I want to pay tribute to that committee and particularly to its convener, Karen Gillan, who was the driving force behind that inquiry. I had the great privilege of serving on that committee. Its report was amongst the most ambitious that the Parliament has ever produced, and it was the foundation stone for curriculum for excellence. That report set out 10 objectives for Scottish education for the next two decades, and it is instructive to look back at those and to see all the work that has gone on to address them. I have actually asked my officials to submit a copy of the committee's report as part of my evidence today. I have also brought along with me as part of that evidence a short film made for the Scottish Learning Festival, which I would also like to be part of my evidence today, and I have copies for each member. That makes the point about the progress that Scottish education has made and the work that is being undertaken. We are in a much stronger position today than we were in 2003. We have record exam results, a record high number of school levers in positive destinations, more new or refurbished schools, and the lowest teacher unemployment in the UK. I pay tribute to my fellow committee members from that time, as well as to our four expert advisers, Sally Brown, the late Malcolm MacKenzie, Lindsay Patterson and Keir Bloomer, on whose evidence we drew. From the outset, curriculum for excellence was that rare thing, a groundbreaking policy that had the support of all political parties. In my own time as education secretary, I want to recognise the role of the party spokesperson in taking us forward. Murdo Fraser, Liz Smith, Dez MacNulty, Hugh Henry, Ken MacIntosh, Margaret Smith, now Mary Scanlon, Liam McArthur, Patrick Harvie, Kezia Dugdale, all those people who have contributed to the success of this policy. There has been a constructive and collegiate approach. In my view, although we have differed on many things, it is really important that we continue together to support curriculum for excellence and Scottish education. When I became education secretary in December 2009, I had my own questions about whether we were going to succeed with such a hugely ambitious programme. Yet all the time I have seen throughout Scotland, in every school I visited, what is the tremendous enthusiasm for the new curriculum and the work that has gone into making it happen, including work by my own predecessor Fiona Hyslop. It has provided us with the best possible long-term plan for how we do education in Scotland, and that was the whole point of CFE. That was what was envisaged in 2003 by this committee, and it is a process, not an event. It has been going on for a considerable period of time, and it will continue to go on, and we will learn as we go forward. This year's exam diet was a major milestone for CFE. By any measure, it was a success. I think that there is a general feeling that teachers who had worked exceptionally hard had come through it and learned from it, difficult as it was for some. As the committee knows, I invited the curriculum for excellence management board to reflect on the implementation of those new qualifications, and I welcomed the publication of their report in August. We will continue to support teachers in delivering them. However, as Ken Muir said to the committee last week, it is the responsibility of everybody in the system to reduce over-assessment. For example, far more pupils were assessed for the national four added value unit than it was necessary, and that is a practical lesson that we have now learned. In introducing those qualifications, there was a degree of over-assessment, and we can begin to withdraw from that and continue to develop the system. We will make further refinements based on what the data tells us. I have asked, as you know, the OACD to report in 2015 on the impact that curriculum for excellence is having. That work is going to be supported by the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Education Committee, and we will look closely at what it tells us. We are supporting teachers in their professional development, too. The new Scottish College for Educational Leadership is now up and running with a new chief executive, a new website, a new fellowship programme available, and this is crucial to all teachers. Ken Muir, some years ago I had the pleasure of meeting the German Federal Secretary for Education, and he joked over lunch in his meetings with other education ministers. He was always able to spot those who were involved in introducing new curricula simply because those were the most worried looking of all. There have been moments of worry in the last five years, but worry is a normal part of human life. So is effort, so is hard work, so is collaboration, and all those things have paid off and will go on paying dividends for our young people. There is an unstoppable momentum in our schools and a huge enthusiasm among teachers and pupils to keep on learning and improving. With every milestone that we have reached, and we have just reached one, we are changing the culture of Scottish education and we are getting closer to realising that gold standard curriculum, which we had, which we wanted to get back, which we envisaged getting back 11 years ago when the committee reported and which we are now getting back. I welcome questions from the committee, of course, on those and no doubt many other points. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that opening statement. Can I begin the question this morning on the issue of communication? The SQA's submission to the committee referred to the organisation having provided comprehensive communication of existing key documents and resources, etc. However, the EIS said to us that the CFE management board and SQA had failed to communicate key messages. The EIS referred to pure communication, as did some others. In your view, could you expand on the comments or differing views on communication of these different organisations? If you accept that there has been some failure in communication, particularly with teachers, how we would improve that? The EIS was part of the management board. All organisations had a collective responsibility for communication, but it can always improve. I was very struck by something that Terry Lanigan said in evidence to you last week. He said, and I want to quote him, that I am quite clear, having worked in education for 37 years, that there has been no initiative in Scottish education during that time about which there has been more communication or more support. I do think that that is a fair reflection, but, of course, where there are failures in communication at crucial pressure points, we need to improve them. I think that the EIS has drawn attention and you are aware of this from evidence and from your reading. It has drawn attention, for example, to communications between the SQA and some of the teaching profession in some schools. We want to continue to improve that. There are both external and internal communications. There is an external communication plan, a single one, for CFE, and that is something that I insisted upon, which I think has worked. We have been able to communicate the information about CFE successfully, essentially, from all the organisations. Internally, I think that we continue to refine the internal communications between the parts of the whole, and I think that the SQA now is fully embedded in that process in a way that perhaps it was not a year ago, and that will continue through the roll-out of the hires. However, I stress in my opening remarks that this has been a learning experience. I think that communication is improving, has improved, and I am glad that people like Terry Lanigan see that it has been by and large successful. Okay, thank you very much for that to Jane Baxter. One of the things that the witness has reflected to us last week was that being provided with information is not the same as becoming knowledgeable, and some comments were made about knowing what to look for on websites and getting the information that you need. I would just like to extend that a little bit to what parents are saying, because I did a little bit of my own Facebook research convener. I put the report from last week on my Facebook page, and a number of parents have contacted me. One of them said that she had engaged with the school and had gone to all the meetings and received a lot of documentation and reports, but she was not convinced that parents who had a poor educational experience themselves or those who face other barriers to engaging with schools would gain much from that process. Can you comment on how that might be improved and what other things schools and education in general could do to make information translate into knowledge? Yes, I think that that is a good point. The involvement of parents in their children's learning is absolutely crucial to success, and we recognise that. There are a number of routes that we follow and have followed in CFE. One is the collaborative partnership that we have had with the parents forum. That has been very strong indeed, and I pay tribute to Ian Ellis and his colleagues who have worked with us every step of the way. They are represented on the management board, so they have taken a keen interest in making sure that information gets to parents. Indeed, I have been to quite a number of their events, as has Alistair Allen, in which we have discussed with parents how we improve communication with parents. We will go on doing that, but the parent forum has been crucial to it that the right type of information gets out. Last year, we published a leaflet on CFE, which I think that the committee has had, but I am happy to distribute copies of it again, jointly with the parent forum that had case studies. It was very helpful to a lot of parents because it explained exactly what people could expect. That is the collaborative element within that. Of course, there is a responsibility in individual schools for communication. As part of the wider improvement work that we are doing and the improvement partnerships that we are engaged in, the focus of parental involvement in school is quite crucial. Indeed, I can think of a school that I have visited recently, Westerhales, where the school is very focused indeed on making sure that no parent escapes the opportunity of being involved with the school. Sometimes, as you say, parents themselves have less unhappy memories of being at school and find school a difficult place to relate to, and that needs to be understood within the practice of the school as they communicate with parents. That job will never be done by definition, but I think that we are continuing to improve how we do it, both in collaboration with parent organisations and with a strong focus in the improvement partnership work. I will add that I really hope that the scope to use social media as much as possible is used, because I am finding through my experience that that is a method that works. I think that employers also need to get the knowledge that they need. There is a little bit of confusion and lack of understanding of the new qualifications with employers, so my question is the same—what do you envisage needing to be improved just to make those levels of satisfaction greater? Very strong work with employers, both again on a national basis and also on the school local basis. We can give you some examples of that if you so wish. I have actually been quite pleased with the level of employer engagement. I think that that has been more comprehensive than we had thought even a couple of years ago. The actual changes in what the qualifications mean are not too difficult to understand. The higher qualification remains in place—the advanced higher qualification remains in place. The national four and five qualifications are probably harder to get across, but we seem to have succeeded in getting those across through a variety of events, stakeholder events and through a variety of communication means. The job is not done and we will continue to do it, but I think that we have seen some positive interaction. We have also had that from another key group, which is colleges and universities, where we have worked closely with colleges and universities who are essentially receiving young people from school so that they understand what the qualifications are and they can fit them into their own expectations. University of Scotland issued a very strong and helpful statement last year that codified the approach of universities. The colleges have been very positive indeed. The colleges see curriculum for excellence as very much reflecting the way in which they work. I also met earlier this year the Russell group of universities south of the border who did not know much about curriculum for excellence but have taken a very positive and strong stance. Also, helpfully due to the work of the two Scottish members of Russell group Anton Muscatelli and Tim O'Shea. Do you see all of that contributing towards the implementation of the wood report? Absolutely. What is bound into this? A lot of the wood recommendations are really dependent upon the continuing implementation of CFE and the development of CFE across the board. In those circumstances, yes, wood grows out of the deeper, broader learning that is curriculum for excellence. Angela Constance and I are working closely on implementing that with great enthusiasm. It is another big step forward for Scottish education. I want to ask about the culture change that is required within the teaching profession in order to ensure that the curriculum for excellence is a success. I have three quotes that I want to read out to you. All from last week's evidence session. Dr Janet Brown is Scottish Qualification Authority. One of the fundamental principles of curriculum for excellence was that it should allow teachers to take back ownership and to use their professional judgment in creating a culture and a curriculum that is interesting and tailored to individuals. However, Richard Goring of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said that the majority of secondary teachers have had the content, the syllabus and all that stuff there for them over the years, but suddenly they have to reinvent a lot of it themselves. That is not the experience that they had in the past and it will take some time to change that. Finally, Ken Muir of the General Teaching Council, we still have some way to go with teachers understanding and head teachers understanding in some cases of the basic philosophy of what curriculum for excellence is trying to achieve. My question is how will the Scottish Government ensure that the cultural change required to meet the aspirations of curriculum for excellence is fully embedded in Scottish education? It is a very good question and it goes to the heart of what curriculum for excellence seeks to achieve in terms of broader and deeper learning. One of the key lessons that comes out of both Finland and Ontario, two of the big long-term examples of positive educational change is that there is a remarkable consistency and the consistent messages in two parts. One is that you need a long-term approach to educational policy. If you have constant shopping and changing, if you have education ministers out of five good ideas before breakfast and do not stick with a long-term change, then you do not succeed as well. The second one is that you have to trust teachers to teach. It is investing in the teaching profession in the long-term and trusting teachers to teach that makes the difference. I am absolutely fixated upon making sure that we do those things. Our long-term approach is curriculum for excellence. We have taken that on, we are carrying on with it, it is continuing to roll out, it will never be finished, it is our process, so that is our long-term approach and our investment in teachers continues to grow. It is implicit in curriculum for excellence and explicit that it is teachers taking responsibility, it is key. The union point of view is correct, it takes time for that to happen. Younger teachers, I do not want to make absolute generalisations because I know many older teachers who have adapted to it very quickly and very well, but younger teachers find it easier coming out of college to do so because they are inspired by it and see the opportunities of it. That is why we have such a growth in well-qualified young people who want to be teachers and we should note that. It is very impressive indeed the qualifications of our young teachers. They get involved in it, they want to deliver it and they take responsibility for it, but it takes a bit of time and that is why we have tried to support it. For example, one of the changes that we made during the programme, one of the refinements that we made to help, was at a certain stage, Larry Flanagan, who was not the general secretary of the AS, but was on the management board and leading this process, said to me that he believed that what we had to do was to make sure that teachers had more materials available to them that had been developed by other teachers to help them. We set in process, and Ken Muir actually, when he was working for Education Scotland, was the key to this. Ken Muir became the sort of librarian, exchange librarian of all those schemes and materials that were building up across Scotland and got them provided from one local authority to another, from one school to another, and we were able to provide an awful lot of things that we hadn't done. We are in a process of culture change, we are in a process of culture change that is and has been difficult for some teachers, but the whole programme is designed to support that change and to make it happen. Interesting to note some statistics on this. The implementation plan, which Bill is responsible for, has said that it includes the professional associations, and there is an absolute agreement there that changing the culture of the curriculum and achieving the principles and aspirations are at the heart of what we need to do. Statistically, again, and Bill's organisation, 90 per cent of schools inspected in the last year had a key strength around young people's learning, motivation, positive attitudes and engagement, 90 per cent. That shows that the power of good teaching is taking place. I think that culture change is taking place. One other culture change convener is important. We are moving from a curriculum model of 2 plus 2 plus 2, which is essentially the model that we saw in most schools, to a 3 plus 3. However, culture change does not take place overnight. One of the mistakes perhaps in starting off in this programme was the assumption that you could change from 2 plus 2 plus 2 to 3 plus 3 just like that in every school in Scotland. That could not happen. We have seen it, but there is that process of change taking place, and that process of change is now moving forward very radically to make sure that we have that 3 plus 3 model. There is an organic nature in culture change, as well as a directional and implementation of culture change. You said that culture change does not take place overnight. I am keen to understand in the short term that SQA prior to the set of qualifications had 390 events across Scotland supporting thousands of teachers. Is that something that you see being replicated over? Education Scotland drew together every secondary head teacher in Scotland. Am I right in saying that? Do you want to say a word about how that worked, and then I can talk about the SQA one? Alongside Curric for Excellence sits the Teaching Scotland's future agenda, which is absolutely about building teacher professionalism, but also about strengthening leadership. Part of what we have been doing around that is running, as the cabinet secretary said, we ran conferences, which had an invite to every secondary school in Scotland for conferences around the country. Before the summer, we are now repeating that in primary, as it happens, because we see leadership as being absolutely crucial to taking forward innovative ideas that are emerging now increasingly strongly in the system, which we can then spread and cross-fertilise across the system. SQA has done something very similar. It has broken it down on a subject level. I hope that most teachers in Scotland over a period of time get the chance to interact with their peers in these gatherings, but there is also tremendous local interaction taking place in local authorities, in school clusters, and all of that is contributing to that profound culture change, which is creating great enthusiasm. I do not know if any of the members of the committee got to the learning festival at all, but the learning festival year and year seems to me to be growing in enthusiasm and commitment from teachers who are energised by this process. Now, it is not without difficulty, but people are seeing how important this is. Last week, I raised the question of workload in relation to CFE with the panel. There seems to be a general agreement that CFE did generate a certain amount of additional workload for teachers. There are a couple of questions arising out of that. One of the major reasons that is identified for that was over-assessment. In retrospect, was there a way to avoid that aspect of the workload or to reduce that, or was it an inevitability given the whole process? Secondly, there seemed to be a general agreement last week that workload in relation to CFE would reduce, but there seemed to be an uncertainty as to whether there might be some residual additional workload. Is there extra workload that is integral to CFE, or is that not the case? I think that we have to understand, insofar as we can, why there was over-assessment, and there is no doubt that there was over-assessment. The newness of the system had something to do with it. Teachers are naturally ambitious for their pupils. They did not want their pupils to suffer or have potentially failed, and therefore they went several extra miles in terms of assessment, which I think they will step back from slightly on the next occasion. Over a period of years, we will see more confidence in that. There was also some concern taking place about the nature of the national 4 qualification, which, of course, is not externally assessed. That was criticised. I think that teachers wanted to make sure that they did that as well as they possibly could. The changes to assessment that were undertaken during the session that the SQA undertook listening to representations of me and others will make a difference. We want to ensure that it makes a difference. I indicated in my remarks this morning that I will want to be assured that the assessment pressures do not increase, and indeed that they decrease over the next 12 months and in each examination diet thereafter. We have also taken very seriously the issue of workload more widely. I announced at the IAS AGM in 2013 the group on workload, which has been meeting over the last year. It has produced a report that is effective. It needs to get into everybody's hands. Jane Baxter's point about communication is undoubtedly true there. We need to make sure that every teacher knows about that in every school knows about that. We need every local authority to collaborate on that. We need to hold our own hands sometimes in terms of seeking statistics or information so that we are not contributing unnecessarily to workload. There was a tendency in some local authorities—I know that the convener raised this in the earlier session—to require all or nearly all N5 candidates to complete the added value unit. I think that we all realise that that is not necessary and that we will step back from that too. However, I think that we are making progress in this. I have a regular meeting with each of the trade unions. Last week was a week in which I met with some of them, including NASUWT. In my discussions with NASUWT, again, and Workload always comes up in these meetings, I also pointed to the responsibility on the unions to make sure that the commitments that have been entered into in the workload group are honoured by local authorities, by school management, and unions have a key role to disseminate information on workload too. I think that we are making progress and the assessment burden will reduce over the next 12 months, and we want it to reduce over the next 12 months. Would it be correct to say that additional workload is not integral to CFE? Yes, and I have said that publicly. In the remarks that I made at the ASAGM in 2013, I have said that it is absolutely not integral to it. Indeed, if we trust teachers to teach, then there should be a reduction, particularly in the unnecessary bureaucracy in the system. There is often, in any bureaucratic system, more belts, more braces than you actually need, and getting those out of the system is important. I used the example in my EIS speech of work plans that teachers are required to submit, which I never looked at by heads of department or head teachers. We need to take that nonsense out of the system completely. Now, local authorities, teaching unions, Government, individual teachers, SQA, Education Scotland, everybody working together to reduce workload and to make sure that there is not over-assessment. I think that that is positive. You mentioned that there have been worries expressed by teachers. Of course, earlier this year, teaching unions had said that they had never experienced so much anger, frustration and disappointment with the exam's authority as they were currently witnessing. We have obviously asked parents and pupils for some questions ahead of this morning. I am just going to ask some questions on their behalf. First, from a principal physics teacher, why not postpone the cessation of the old advanced tyre for a year so that pupils who are following the old tyre will have a continuous experience? The new CFE advanced tyre is significantly different. Pupils who follow the old tyre will be disadvantaged. How would you respond to that, teacher? I have been very open to discussion of both higher and advanced higher and flexibility in these circumstances. We offered flexibility in the higher as required by schools in circumstances that they could define. That was very positive indeed. In terms of advanced higher, I think that it is less likely in this process that that will be a major pressure. However, if any school found itself in an impossible situation, we would be listening, as we are always listening to these circumstances. We do not think that there is a need for dual running of the advanced higher. We have taken quite a lot of pressure out of the system with the much more flexible view on the higher. The advanced higher is pretty intense no matter which curriculum you follow. In those circumstances, it is unlikely that there would be a need for a final change in that regard. However, I am always willing to have conversations. I have spent much time sitting down and talking to teachers about those issues, and we will continue to do so. Thank you for your commitment to listening. Teachers are raising the concerns about the possible disadvantage that they could bring to pupils. I greatly appreciate the extra-inset days allocated to prepare resources for implementation of the new curriculum. However, too many of the resources that I produced on these days are now redundant as the SQA has continuously changed the guidelines. I attended a meeting in February where the SQA assured the community of physics teachers that there would be no changes to the guidelines after April 2014. They stated that changes may be made after the 2015 exam date. That has not been the case across the range of levels. Changes have been made across the whole of the secondary curriculum over the recent months, with the most recent being published at the end of September 2014. The physics teacher has asked, can the Government intervene to prevent the SQA from making further changes to the curriculum, or that, when changes are made, they are not for the current teaching session, but for future sessions? If you think about it for a moment, there is a good reason for that. There are two good reasons. One is that we do not set curricula. I do not think that you would want me, Mr Bibby, to interfere in the physics, what is taught in the physics classroom. The reality of the situation here is that the SQA has made changes where those changes have been either requested by or seem to be essential because of the views of classroom teachers themselves. The SQA is not spending time dreaming up ways in which it can change things, but it is trying to be. Indeed, this is a request of teachers. It is a request of the IAS. It is trying to be as responsive as it can be. To some extent, the problems that some teachers experienced in the early part of this year were because it was being too responsive from time to time. It was trying to listen to every single point that was put. I agree that there is a point at which we say, that is it. It is done. It is set. That is what we are going to go ahead with. I know the SQA well. I know that they are trying to be responsive. I think that it is much better to allow them to be responsive, but certainly when teachers think that there is too much change, they need to say so directly to the SQA. One of the purposes of all those meetings that have been held is to give the opportunity for teachers to say directly to the SQA, hang on a minute. We think this and we think that, so they should take those opportunities. Another question that has been raised by science teachers is why why do people who have not been in a classroom for years think that subjects such as biology and physics can be taught at N4 and N5 in the same classroom? They are totally different courses. I think that a teacher who finds it difficult to teach in those circumstances should first of all talk to their head of department and then to their head teacher. There may be reasons why that is necessary in that school for a period of time. I am not likely to know those reasons in every single classroom. There may be opportunities for mixing those classes at certain times. That is what the teacher needs to discuss with the head of department, the head teacher, with the parents of the pupils involved and with the pupils themselves, because participation of pupils in deciding on their own learning is extremely important. That is how decisions will be reached. There is a sort of parallel in something else that you may come up later on today, which is the number of subjects that are taken in a school. One of the most interesting discussions that I have had with this is with a group of pupils at Rossier academy, my constituency, who felt that taking 8 was too many and wanted a change to take place and explained why that change should take place. Young people taking national 4 and national 5 should be influencing their own learning, and that is a collaborative and collective decision within a school. I thank you for your answer. I do not think that there are isolated incidents, I think that we are hearing more and more concerns along those lines. In March 2012, you said, Cabinet Secretary, I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland has the right support, right help and right leadership, which will come from the Government, from education in Scotland, from the local authority and from when within their school cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making. Why, then, are we hearing last week that at least a third of courses will be delivered in the existing higher this year? Is it because, as the EIS have said, the survey said that support for the new higher was ranked as excellent by 1 per cent of teachers and poor by 65 per cent of teachers? I think that it is a little strange to criticise now the flexibility that exists on the higher as being inconsistent with my confidence in the programme. I believed throughout this process that the support that we should give to teachers and schools was paramount. That is why, repeatedly in my time as Cabinet Secretary, I have brought forward additional support, why I have always offered it to the unions, why I have had big discussions with Education Scotland, with my colleagues in the civil service and others to make sure the maximum support is provided. Now, my view last year was on the higher that the pressure did not need to be so great having got through the first diet and that there was an argument for those who had genuine difficulties or concerns to have dual running for the higher because dual running would exist for the higher anyway because of the system that existed. In those circumstances, I gave that flexibility. It is not a lack of confidence in the programme, it is a part of the support for teachers and I am glad that that has been taken up constructively in a variety of places. Let us just reflect where we are presently. I am glad that you quoted me in 2012 because I think frankly that I was right and I think that the quotes that I have got in front of me from people who commented on the diet indicate that I was right. In actual fact, we have had a successful introduction. We have a lot more work to do, but we have had that successful introduction. If we keep our heat and we make sure that we continue to support teachers, then we will get through the introduction of the higher and then the new advance hires and we will continue with CFE. I think that prediction to be absolutely honest about it turned out to be correct, but that was because we all worked together on it and we should work together on it. How can you assert that teachers have had the right support, the right help and the right leadership when, over a third, at least a third, we do not actually know the exact figures of courses will be provided in the existing higher? How can you say that we provided the higher? It is because the flexibility exists to have either the existing higher or the new higher. That is a necessary flexibility within the system. I feel that that is the right flexibility in the system. It was welcomed by the teaching trade unions as well as by a wide range of others. I do not know anybody who believes that that is not the right thing to happen. If I can quote Richard Gawrding of the SSTATU, we were absolutely delighted that the national four and national five results were as positive as we were there. Jane Peckhan of the NUSUWT in terms of getting the voices of the profession heard, for example on this matter, being part of the management body that allows us to take forward the profession's views again and again. People are being positive about the experience, not saying that it is perfect, not saying that it is without stress and difficulty because it has been, but making sure that we are delivering something highly significant for Scotland's young people and for the future of Scotland. You said that the right support, right help and right leadership would come. We have teachers saying that that did not come. We also have the Royal Society of Edinburgh saying that there has been a lack of systematic strategy for the implementation of curriculum for excellence. I see your smiling at that. I do not think that that is a laugh in my mind. I do not agree with that. I am quite happy to debate that with Sally Brown, who was one of the expert advisers to the committee 10 years ago. I do not agree with that. I have told Sally to her face. I do not agree with that. I think that there was and remains a systematic strategy, but the interesting thing about that, Mr Bibby, is that I have invited the Royal Society of Edinburgh Education Committee to be part of the OECD process to look at curriculum for excellence implementation. I am inviting them in to be part of the process to make sure that we do understand what has taken place. I welcome their input. I will have that useful debate. Let us look at, for example, the teacher and secondary pupil questionnaire that Education Scotland has undertaken, the pre-inspection questionnaires. 8,470 questionnaires issued between April 2012 and March 2014. 73 per cent response rate, 87 per cent agree or strongly agree that they have regular opportunities to help shape the curriculum. 89 per cent agree or strongly agree that they have good opportunities for continuing professional development. I could go on. There are a range of positive views of the work that has been done. I am with you, Mr Bibby, on the issue of the fact that this can be difficult and has been difficult. It has not been perfect. No work of human hand is perfect, but I think that there has been genuine good work undertaken across the board by this committee, right through to schools, to individuals, and that has produced results. That is what we intend to go on doing. The Royal Society for Edinburgh will also talk about a lack of pilot trials and independent evaluation, and mention that a state that is cricking for excellence is not being managed holistically. What do you have to say to that? That is the point of view that they can bring into the OACD assessment. Again, I think that in terms of managing it holistically, I am not entirely sure what they mean. On pilot trials, I am happy to defend the process that we undertook, and very vigorously. For the reason that I do not think that you can pilot a new curriculum of this nature. There was a cross-party agreement in 2003, which I have drawn attention to, that Scottish education needed to change. There was an agreement that that needed to change over a school generation. That is what all the parties agreed that would happen. That is what happened. It started in 2004, and it has continued now, and it has got a couple of years to go until the full roll-out has taken place. If you had piloted this in one place, you would have created inconsistencies of qualification, and you would have created inconsistencies of expectation. I think that it was right to do it in the way that it was done. In terms of evaluation, I have always said, and I know that you quote my words often, so no doubt you will find a quote that said it. I have repeatedly said that I felt the right time to evaluate this was after we had had the first major diet, when the thing was essentially established. It was not a good idea to indulge in piecemeal evaluation until that time. The moment that we had that, then indeed last year, I anticipated in my speech at the learning festival and said that we would bring in the most significant outside body I could find, which was the OECD, to look at this with a global reputation, but we would also root it within educational experience in Scotland. That is why I invited the Ross Society of Edinburgh Education Committee to be essentially the supporters of that process, and I am very happy that that is taking place. That will be an interesting set of conclusions that it will reach and report in December 2015. No doubt that this committee will want to be part both of that evaluation and of deciding what is next. We have teachers that have never been so angry and frustrated, feeling unsupported. We have anxious and worried parents and pupils. We have the Royal Society of Edinburgh complaining on a lack of systematic strategy for its implementation and saying that it has not been managed holistically. You have accepted that there has been mistakes made in the process. You have said that there has been over-assessment. As the man who is ultimately responsible, would you like to apologise to the teachers, parents and pupils for what has gone on? No, what I would like to do is to pay tribute to everybody who has worked so hard. Everybody has worked hard on this and it has been tough for a lot of different people. In those circumstances, we have done something that is worthwhile and is producing results for the young people of Scotland. I have maintained a positive attitude during all of this and I have tried to make sure that whatever we did was helpful to teachers and to schools. I contrast that attitude, Mr Bibby, reluctantly contrast that with the words of Kezia Dugdale in Parliament on 18 March, which said, I blame the Cabinet Secretary, it will be his responsibility when this goes wrong. I think that that was probably the most unhelpful thing that I heard in the whole period that I have been involved in CFE, because what has determined the success of this has been, despite disputes about methodologies and about individual issues, what has determined the success of this is a willingness to make sure that this goes right and to work hard together to make sure that this goes right. I hope that that was a single example and I hope that what we could return to was positive approaches. You and I can debate and discuss till the cows come home the actual individual issues, but CFE is a good thing that many, many people have worked together to make a success. I am grateful to every single one of them, including, as I said earlier, the opposition-spokes people with whom I have disagreed. There have been things that have went wrong, Cabinet Secretary. I do not think that anyone would dispute that. You have mentioned earlier that you have been the Cabinet Secretary since 2009. You are the man who is ultimately responsible for Scottish education. There has been a great deal of mismanagement of the implementation of Cricum for excellence over the past couple of years. That is your responsibility. Do you accept that you have made mistakes? Do you have regrets? Or is it other people's fault? Everybody who has been involved in this process has made mistakes. Everybody can think of things that they would want to do differently. I suspect that that is true of yourself and Kezia Dugdale. Kezia Dugdale should not have said when this goes wrong. What we do every day is get up in the morning and say, let's make the best we can of Scottish education. That applies to everybody in Scottish education. It is that attitude that is creating the circumstances in which Cricum for excellence is succeeding and will succeed. To be honest, Mr Bibby, you should try to be part of that. Try to be part of that success, not will it's failure. You touched on a couple of issues that are to do with the general principles of CFE and embedding those in the future, particularly the 3 plus 3 model of teaching that you have already talked a little about. One of the other concerns is the principle about the number of subjects that are being chosen. You have mentioned the pupils who contributed to that debate, too. Do you think that there is more work to be done in terms of explaining that a reduction in the number of subjects does not necessarily mean a reduction in the curriculum and learning experience of young people? How will that be communicated to parents and carers and the wider community in terms of employers? I was particularly concerned that the Royal Society evidence last week suggested that the reduction in the number of subjects was an issue with Cricum for excellence, but in my mind it's a general principle that's a breadth in the experience of the young people and the outcomes that are important. If you could just touch on those general principles again with a bit more detail. I've heard the individual who's involved with the Royal Society that says this repeatedly is Cair Bloomer, and of course he was the father of Cricum for excellence. I know that it's been a concern of his. I would advise him to talk to some pupils about this. I think that the most interesting experience you get out of this is talking to young people about their expectations. I go back to those pupils in Rothstein. It was a very interesting experience. They stick particularly strong in the mind because it's been a question over the long period of time, all the time I've been Cabinet Secretary. This has been a question. Is there in any sense a reduction if you're talking about five or six subjects in a single year? When you talk about pupils, about the stress on pupils and the pressure on pupils, they are absolutely clear that what they want is to be able to work intensively on a smaller number of subjects rather than more thinly on a wider range of subjects. It applies not just to the pressure of examination or assessment. It applies to all the coursework that takes place and the regular issues within coursework. I think that there is no diminution because there is no reduction over a period of time. As a result of that, I think that the right number is running out somewhere five, six, seven-ish. I think that eight is very high and an exceptional one. One of the pressures on this has been parental expectation. It is important that parents understand why this change isn't a diminution. We are all, to some extent, the prisoners of the educational experience that we have had. This is a different type of education. In those circumstances, I think that over a period of time, this will resolve itself. I would be surprised, although I am often prepared to be surprised, but I would be surprised and Bill might just confirm this, whether, in actual fact, the trend will not be, over the next year to two years, over a reduction from eight in those places where there are eight, down to six or seven. Indeed, we are seeing a strong trend towards that. As schools are now really beginning to rethink their whole curriculum model, the kind of isolated focus on what happens in S4 can be a bit misleading. We need to bear in mind, for example, that in S3, now, young people are studying a broader curriculum than ever before to a higher standard across a whole range of subjects. We are then looking at how they follow through into the three years of the senior phase. What matters really is what their cumulative achievement and study is by the end of that whole six-year journey, indeed building on primary. As I said, there is a lot of very interesting thinking going on. Schools are beginning to really exploit the potential of the senior phase, and there will be different pathways for different young people. I think that we are moving away from a one-size-fits-all notion that all pupils must do the same number of subjects in the same year towards something that is much more customised to the individual's needs. One thing that we should not forget is the trajectory that runs directly into higher and does not necessarily run through national five. That is a discussion that we need to have. It is not yet common, but there are many headteachers who are discussing this in a constructive way. I think that we should not, as I said, create some frequencies. Things will continue to change, ideas will change. I have had a very interesting discussion with a dozen headteachers in late May or June about how that would be a developing model, for many pupils, and that changes things, too. On that subject, I have heard what you are saying. Is there not the case that has been raised by many of the submissions that we have had? I can understand the depth of learning, and I appreciate all that. However, it is more about the breadth of opportunities in terms of career and the options for career. Moving from eight subjects down to five or six, could that possibly be limiting careers? If I could perhaps tie that in with Neil Bibby, who mentioned physics quite a bit. In our comments from Facebook and Twitter, the physics teachers had quite a lot to say, but they said that sciences and physics in particular seems to have been made more difficult. The reduction in the number of subjects does that limit options? Given that physics and other science subjects seem to have been particularly critical of CFE this year, is that likely to reduce the number of subjects at schools going on to university at a time when we are all committed to having more women coming into the STEM subjects? That is a good question. I think that the answer cannot be given for one cohort alone. There will be many different opportunities. Generally, I do not think that it reduces opportunity. I do not think that it reduces choice. I think that a school will encourage the widest possible choice and will keep those choices open for a long period of time. I think that that is probably what the system does. It would be important that we show you in more depth some of the examples that we used in the leaflet with the parent forum last year, because they showed a variety of different examples of career pathways that were different and were chosen differently in different circumstances. For example, somebody who was studying for a variety of N4s and N5s, there are a variety of learning pathways that come out of that. They could leave school for work, do a modern apprenticeship, complete an HNC as part of a modern apprenticeship at college, and then, perhaps, matriculate into university. There are opportunities there. There is an opportunity to bypass N5s, in which case the issue does not arise. That is an earlier selection, with a number of selections being made for hires and that trajectory being taken. There is the N4 and N5 route for young people who will then want to make a decision as a result of that, whether they do more subjects at a lower level, or whether they take the number of subjects at a higher level, possibly even at the advanced higher level. I do not think that there is a reduction in opportunity. We would keep ourselves alive to that, because pathways should be kept wide open for as long as possible. In terms of science and physics, I think that there has been, of all the subjects—I think that physics is the one that has expressed the most concern over the past two years. I met a number of physics teachers, so has Alan. I can understand that, the particular nature of the subject perhaps leads to that. However, we are alive to the fact that we need to continue to offer the sciences as broadly as possible, and we will continue to do that. I think that we should always be aware that we need young people to be scientists, to be engineers, to be physicists. I opened a new Mern's academy on Friday, and I met two inspirational young people in their sixth year, both of whom were going to study physics at university. When I talked to them about it, it was the influence of their physics teacher, almost more than anything else, that created those circumstances. Whoever the physics teachers at Mern's academy should take a bow or physics teachers for that. We need to encourage that broadly. We also need to encourage, as you will know, the languages options. I think that curriculum for excellence has been helpful in allowing a broader choice of languages plus the one plus two. I am mindful of the importance of your question. I think that we should remain mindful that we do not limit opportunities, but I think that if we could share with you some of the pathways information, you would see that those options are remaining open. That is very helpful. I am pleased to hear that you are mindful in your keeping an eye on the sciences, because they seem to have been very vocal in the past year. You said to Gordon MacDonald that we have to trust teachers to teach. One of the questions and comments on Facebook and Twitter says, when will the Government stop meddling and allow teachers to teach? Have we got the right balance here? I do not think that we have ever had a system that encourages teachers to take responsibility for their own teaching greater than the system that we have. We have a very clear system in Scotland now. CFE encourages teachers to teach essentially in their way to their full professionalism. We have a very clear registration system, which is absolutely clear. The standards for registration are clear and transparent. I think that that frees teachers absolutely. There is always a balance to be struck. I believe that we are freeing teachers in such a way, but you have also heard parallel complaints about not supporting teachers enough. There always will be a balance, but I am a strong advocate, as you know, of freeing teachers to teach and of not interfering in that role. I think that we have got the balance about right. I have two short questions. The other one is the interdisciplinary learning. When you were a mere opposition spokesman, Mr Russell, like myself, sitting up the road listening to Peter Peacock talking about curriculum for excellence, although I was not involved, I was really impressed at the idea that what you learned in one subject—the skills that you picked up in one subject—could apply to others. I really thought that that was quite innovative and exciting. However, the evidence and the submissions that we have had—we spoke about it last week and the RSE also mentioned it—was really that there has been such a focus, almost an obsession, on exams that we have lost the interdisciplinary learning. I wonder now that you are looking at reducing and tackling the bureaucracy, etc. Can we get back to the basic principles of curriculum for excellence, the confident learner, responsible citizen and effective contributor? I think that that is something that we would all want to see. I do not think that any of us wants to see that basic ethos lost. I do not think that it has been lost. I know that Keir Bloomer has been a strong voice in the RSE evidence. Perhaps his strong affection for CFE blinds him a little to what is going on in classrooms. There is no loss of interdisciplinary learning. Interdisciplinary learning is at the heart of CFE. If you go to any school at any time, you will see how interdisciplinary learning works. I am absolutely supportive of a reduction in exam pressure. However, the desire to see exam results does not come solely from me. It comes from a range of parents, perhaps even people around this table, who want to make sure that exam results are solid and respectable and used to mark progress and to get into jobs and to do other things. There is a balance to be struck there. However, if the committee wants to recommend and support a continuing reduction in the pressure of exam and inspection to big issues at the start of this process, you will not find me an enemy of that in the slightest. It did come up in evidence last week. It is not something that I made up. It has come up. I agree with you. I think that it is a reasonable question. We should do something about it. Thank you. I am pleased that we are on the same page there. We are, but you will have to support that when the pressure comes on from people who say that there should be more exams. I will have to support that. I have always supported curriculum for excellence. You get the point. I do not have to do anything else. It is a serious point. I am sure that you and I go back a long way. You will understand this. There is a pressure often from people who say that we want more exams. We have to have this exam and that exam. Anybody in politics who says that I would like to reduce the pressure of exams or inspections immediately finds himself up against a lobby that says, oh, no, no, we have to have more inspections. We have to have more exams. The point is simply that if people believe that there should be fewer exams and less exam pressure, it is necessary for them to stand up for that when the equal and opposite pressure arises. I would like to think that we do not have to reduce things in order to help young people to be confident in their aspirations. I think that we all share that. My final point was raised by Jane Baxter. We seem to keep talking about exams all the time. I am sure that you have read the evidence from last week. Given the commitment all around this table for the wood commission, we want that to work so well. Although you did respond to Jane, I am not finding that dovetail between CFE and the wood commission. I am not finding that easy. I think that the second point is how are you working with CFE colleges to ensure that the opportunities that they can offer, as well as what is offered in schools, for taster, modern apprenticeships or whatever, how are you making sure that the further education colleges or pupils at school are given the opportunity to pick up modern apprenticeships and experience at the further education colleges? How do they fit into all that? Well, they fit into what we are trying to do. Wood could not really succeed without CFE, without the flexibility that exists in CFE. The opportunity for divergent paths to be taken and a range of opportunities to be added on to the offer and to be there as alternatives. I think that the really significant thing about wood is not that it simply says that there should be a phrase that I do not like particularly, parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications, because I think that that does not say the right thing, but that the range of opportunities should be wide and that range of opportunities should always include the opportunity of vocational as well as academic qualifications. The system that we have developed with CFE is a system that allows that to happen. That is the first thing. The second thing is that there is an issue about making sure that a broad general education is not narrowed unduly. That is what we are trying to do with the 3 plus 3 model. When we are talking about young people at school entering into modern apprenticeships, we have to make sure that that model works in terms of the broad general education. Now, the wood recommendations are clear on this. We can see how they are going to work. The third issue there is the partner in delivering those has to be the FE system. It is quite obvious. Quite clearly, the FE system has a major role to play in delivering those vocational qualifications, because it does it already. You know the system well. The system does it already. We are keen to do that. We got into a bit of confusion in six or seven years ago with what was happening. Local authorities were trying to do things with young people in colleges, and colleges were trying to do things with schools. It got confused. We are much clearer now about what the relationship would be. Wood can lay that out even more clearly to make sure that colleges have a role to play in supporting young people in vocational qualifications without interfering with the broad general education that takes place. I was pleased at Terry Lennon again last week in his evidence to the fact that this is moving fast. It is moving fast to get pilot projects into place to make sure that this is happening in places across the country. As that develops, we will see a rapid change. I was going to ask you about opportunities for sharing best practice, but you answered that quite extensively to my colleague Gordon MacDonald. I am therefore going to ask something completely different. One of the Government initiatives that was introduced at the same time as curriculum for excellence was rolling out and has been affected by curriculum for excellence. It was the commitment to Scottish studies in schools. Obviously, that is a very popular initiative. I think that about 80 per cent of people in Scotland believe that their children should learn more about their own culture. There was a big debate, as you know, about whether it should be taught as a separate stream, as I believe it is taught, say, in Norway. However, it was decided because of curriculum for excellence that it should be interdisciplinary, so that Scottish studies should run throughout all subjects. How that was going and what monitoring was happening in terms of the effectiveness of introducing Scottish studies across the curriculum? Bill is the one with the most in terms of inspection who will be able to tell us how it goes. I am sure that you have some general information, but I am happy to make sure that you are written to with detailed information on numbers, presentations and things. I am sure that we could get you some more specific information and feedback from our inspections, but I am absolutely convinced that embedding it across the curriculum is the right way to go. Indeed, many elements of, traditionally, primary schools and secondary schools would embed elements of Scottish studies across different subjects in the curriculum where that fitted. It also makes a very good context for interdisciplinary learning, as was raised earlier. We see it happening in schools. We are very active in reference to your previous potential question at sharing best practice across the country from what we see best in inspections. We will be continuing to do that, but I am happy to provide you with some more. How much of a priority is it given? Obviously, you can understand that, even the complexion of the discussion today, quite understandably, there is a big focus on things such as physics, languages and preparation for apprenticeships. That is totally understandable, but is there a danger that, because of that, Scottish studies have not been aware of it as part of the general discussion around curriculum for excellence recently? It is up to us to have a hierarchy of subjects in schools. What it is up to us is to make sure that the offer is wide and that the offer is appropriate so that people have the options that they need to have and as many of them as possible. However, it is really up to schools, it is up to young people, it is up to parents to show an interest and to take these up. I would want to make sure that it is widely available—that is our job, and I think that the evidence is that it is becoming more widely available—and I would want to make sure that people knew that it existed. I think that people then have to make strong conclusions of their own about how they are going to take it up. I would like to have done it, but that does not necessarily mean that everybody will want to do it. I am quite surprised at what you say there, but you are basically saying that it is optional. I thought that it was Government policy that it was— Everything is optional in Scottish education, I think, with the exception of religious observance in secondary schools. Everything is optional in that regard. I do not want to diminish its importance. I am an enthusiast for it, but equally I do not want to say that this is a subject that we are promoting over and above other subjects. I want a very wide range of subjects to be available. I think that Scottish studies is a great thing. I would like to see pupils take it, and I think that we should continue to offer it at a growing level so that, naturally, you can go to do higher, you can go and do advanced hires, you can do a range of things in it. However, it is one of the options. I do not think that it goes further than just being another subject. It is core to young people's self-esteem, particularly young working-class young people. For example, if you look at language, working-class young people speak in Scots. If their language is legitimated through the academic curriculum, that will improve their self-esteem and will go right through the whole curriculum. I would hope that that would be the case. I would hope that any school would make sure that they legitimise all use of Scots in a school, whether or not those people are taking Scottish studies. Scots is a language and should be recognised as such. I would hope that we have gone well past the days when pupils get punished for speaking the language, essentially, of the community, whether it be Scots or Gaelic. Does that mean that Scots will get parity with Gaelic then? Scots remains an important part of the study. Of course it is parity because it is a language. In terms of expenditure and public policy and how that policy is put in place, Gaelic presently has more attention, but there are good historical reasons for that. I would like to ask about resources, cabinet secretary, and to acknowledge the achievement of teachers and pupils and everybody else involved in the curriculum for excellence in this year's results. Last week, Larry Flanagan said that that was not sustainable. Jane Peckham said that teachers still feel extremely anxious about the next phase, and Richard Goreng said that there is a lot of apprehension and anxiety about that. I wonder if you think that resources play a part in reducing those fears and anxieties and building teachers' confidence. In particular, I wonder if there were issues about resourcing teachers across the different education authorities and teacher numbers, but given what you said a couple of minutes ago about colleges, that might be wondered if there was an issue about college resourcing as well, and what you said about the wood commission and its setting out how it is going to take this forward. We are looking at additional resources. I do not want to anticipate the budget clearly, and I would not be able to do so, but the commitment that was given by the Government to resource the wood commission and that commitment will be honoured. Equally, there are strong financial pressures in the system, but on every occasion, I have been able to add additional resources to both colleges and to curriculum for excellence. In terms of teacher numbers, I am very keen that we maintain and, if possible, expand teacher numbers. We have an agreement with COSLA on teacher numbers, which requires to be honoured. I do not think that there is a case to be made for reducing teacher numbers in Scotland. I hear it occasionally from local authorities. I do not think that that case is a valid case. In those circumstances, I would like where possible to be able to invest more, but I am also operating under the present constraints of the present constitutional settlement and the present financial settlement, and that is a difficult thing always to do. It is something that we are going to cover more as we scrutinise the budget, so we will return to that subject. Thank you. Thank you. Neil, just on the issue of resources as well, a teacher contacted us through Facebook and Twitter. They said, the implementation of a new curriculum has been done at a time when local authority budgets have been cut. The knock-on effect has reduced staff training and resources in the classroom for the people that are delivering the curriculum. I along with many of my colleagues spend much of our own money funding some of the gaps. There are also cases of tri-level teaching as the staff are not available to run national free four, five or national five in higher courses separately. Is the Government planning on making available extra resources to allow teachers to deliver the described curriculum? Well, the reduction in local authority education budgets between 11.12 to 12.13 was 0.8 per cent. I fight very hard to maintain local authority education budgets, but it is within the context of enormous financial pressure on the Scottish budget settlement, and that remains the case. I have repeatedly said that there is always a difficulty and bound to be difficulty in introducing major reform at a time of falling resources, but we have done remarkably well with the resource, and that means that every teacher has done remarkably well with the resource. Of course, I would welcome an opportunity to increase that resource. It is not an opportunity that will now be available through full control of the Scottish financial resources, unfortunately, as would have happened with independence, but we need to make sure that we have stronger financial control in Scotland so that we can make those decisions. Of course, we would not be assisted if local authorities reduced educational expenditure. What do you believe this year's experience of the curriculum for excellence and the national qualifications? What does it suggest about the degree to which the original aspirations of CFE have actually been realised in practice? I think that we have done very well to realise, if you go back to the 10 points that I raised at the beginning, that arose out of the inquiry into the future of the principles of Scottish education. I really commend that sheet of paper to you, which is quite fascinating. It is astonishing, in my view, how many of those have either been achieved or in the process of being achieved, and those are the underlying purposes of CFE. CFE was built upon them as the foundations. I think that we have been honest to a great deal of it. Of course, Mary Scanlon has correctly raised issues such as examination pressure. Other members have referred to assessment. Those are things that accrue in any process of change. They are a bit like barnacles that they begin to grow on the system. We have to be pretty ruthless about saying that we do not want those things to grow on it and that we want to remain true to those principles. All of us have to remain true to those principles. It is not enough just to say, well, is the minister remaining true to the principles or is education Scotland remaining true to the principles. We have to remain true to them as politicians because we decided upon those principles at the beginning. We have to remain true to them as political parties, opposition and government, so that we are collaborating on them. We have to remain true to them across the education system and local authorities have to remain true to them, schools have to remain true to them and individual teachers have to remain true to them. Now, I think that we have done pretty well in that regard, but we could always do better. Perhaps we should renew our—if I may use a much-used word—vow to make sure that we are committed to them and that we do think that this is the right direction for Scottish education, and we should not be looking for failure, we should be working for success. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I certainly hope that it would be stronger than a vow, but we shall see if they are met. Thank you very much for your attendance today and, of course, to your supporting officials Fiona and Bill. Thank you very much for coming along. There may well be issues that we wish to write to you about, but we will have a look at that after we have reviewed— I would be surprised if there were. —the evidence, Cabinet Secretary. That concludes our business for today, and I close the meeting.