 Oedden nhw'n gychwyn ni ddweud o gymryd o'r gyfrannu chi'n cytuno coreisio newydd ym ni, ac o unrhyw wedi'u cy segregoedol. Byddwn ni wedi ddesgrifennu hynny fel gyflawni gwasanaethol ni'n gweithio'r gwestiyniadau nifer, ac rwy'n cael iechyd o'r holl fawr i cofio'i'r ddweud o'r holl yma. We'r hebion a chwell i'n gwneud yw gwneud hynny, ond rwy'n cael ei wneud ei wedi'u cyhoedd Spieler, ond rwy'n cael ei eistedd i'n gweithio'n gyflawni. Can I invite the Cabinet Secretary therefore to get us under way by making some opening remarks? 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've visited, what is the tremendous enthusiasm for the new curriculum and the work that's 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 Scotland, and that was the whole point of CFE. That was what was envisaged in 2003 by this committee, and it's a process, not an event. It's been going on for a considerable period of time and it will continue to go on, and we'll learn as we go forward. Firstly, 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've 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 which they could define, and that was very positive indeed. In terms of advanced higher, I think it is less likely in this process that that will be a major pressure, but if any school found itself in an impossible situation, we'd be listening, as we're always listening to these circumstances. We don't think that there's a need for dual running of the advanced higher. We've 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, I think it's unlikely that there would be the need for a final change in that regard, but I'm always willing to have conversations. I've spent much time sitting down and talking to teachers about these issues and will continue to do so. Thank you for your commitment to listening. Teachers are raising the concerns about the possible disadvantage it could bring to pupils. Another physics teacher has said, 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. This 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. This physics teacher has asked, can the government intervene to prevent the SQA making further changes to the curriculum or that, when changes are made, they are not for the current teaching session but for future sessions? I think that 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 IS. It is trying to be as responsive as it can be. I think 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 do agree that there is a point at which we say, no, 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 they are trying to be responsive. I think it is much better to allow them to be responsive. 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 these 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. 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. What would you say to that teacher? Well, I think 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. Participation of pupils and deciding on their own learning is extremely important. That is how decisions will be reached. There is a sort of parallel in something else which 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 I have had with this is a group of pupils at Rossi Academy, my own constituency, who felt that taking 8 was too many and wanted a change to take place and explain 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. Is there not the case that has been raised by many of the submissions that we have had that I can understand the depth of learning? I appreciate all that. It is more about the breadth of opportunities in terms of career and the options for career. Moving from 8 subjects down to 5 or 6, could that possibly be limiting careers? If I could perhaps tie that in with Neil Bibby, he mentioned quite a bit on physics. In our comments from Facebook and Twitter, the physics teachers had quite a lot to say, but they did say that sciences and physics in particular seems to have been made more difficult. What I am asking is 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 numbers taking those subjects at schools or at university at a time where I know that we are all committed to having more women coming into the STEM subjects? I think it 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 is probably what the system does. It would be important that we show you in more depth perhaps 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 which were different and were chosen differently in different circumstances. For example, somebody who was studying for a variety of N4s and N5s, there are some learning pathways, 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. So there are opportunities there. There is an opportunity to bypass N5s in which case the issue does not arise. There 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 of whether they do more subjects at a lower level or whether they take a number of subjects at a higher level, possibly even at the advanced higher level. So I do not think there is a reduction in opportunity and 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 mean, I think there has been, of all the subjects, I think physics is the one that's expressed the most concern over the last two years. I mean, I've met a number of physics teachers so has Alan. I can understand that, the particular nature of the subject perhaps leads to that. But 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 we should always be aware that we need young people to be scientists, to be engineers, to be physicists. I opened a new Merse 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 told 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 Merse Academy should take a bow or physics teachers for that. So we need to encourage that broadly. We also need to encourage, as you will know, the languages options. And I think curriculum for excellence has been helpful in allowing a broader choice of languages plus the one plus two. So I'm mindful of the importance of your question. I think we should remain mindful that we don't limit opportunities. But I think if we could share with you some of the pathways information, I think you would see that those options are remaining open. That's very helpful. I'm pleased to hear that you are mindful in your keeping an eye on the sciences because they do seem to have been very vocal in the past year. Just a very short question that you did say to Gordon MacDonald that we have to trust teachers to teach. One of the questions and comments through Facebook and Twitter says, when will the government stop meddling and allow teachers to teach? Have we got the right balance here? I don't think we've ever had a system that encourages teachers to take responsibility for their own teaching greater than the system we've got. We have a very clear system in Scotland now. CFE encourages teachers to teach essentially in their way to their full professionalism. And we have a very clear registration system, which is absolutely clear. The standards for registration are clear and transparent. I think that frees teachers absolutely. There's always a balance to be struck. I believe that we're freeing teachers in such a way, but you've also heard parallel complaints about not supporting teachers enough. So 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, and I think we've got the balance about right. A teacher contacted us through Facebook and Twitter. The implementation of the 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%. 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, I think, remarkably well with the resource, and that means every teacher has done remarkably well with the resource, and 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 these decisions. And of course we wouldn't be assisted if local authorities reduced educational expenditure.