 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 18th meeting of the Education and Skills Committee in 2019. I remind everyone present to turn their mobile phones and devices to silent for the duration of the meeting. Today, we have received apologies from Tavish Scott MSP. We move to agenda item 1. It is a piece of draft subordinate legislation, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. Information about the instrument is provided in paper 1. It should explain that the affirmative instrument is two agenda items. The first is an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to explain the instrument and for members to ask questions of the cabinet secretary and his officials. You will then turn to agenda item 2, where there will be a debate on the motion and the instrument that is in the published agenda. I would like to welcome to the committee this morning Cabinet Secretary John Swinney, Secretary for Education and Skills, David Roy, Head of Teacher Education and Leadership, and Clare Cullen, Legal Directed at the School Education Branch of the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement on the instrument. I welcome the opportunity this morning to address the committee in connection with the proposed introduction of a requirement that all teachers appointed to their first permanent head teacher post in local authority or granted schools from August 2020 should hold the standard for headship. The standard for headship is awarded by the General Teaching Council for Scotland on successful completion of the inter-headship programme, which is offered by seven universities. A priority of the Scottish Government is to improve the life chances and education of all children in Scotland. Leadership is recognised as one of the most important aspects of the success of any school. Highly effective leadership is key to ensuring the highest possible standards and expectations are shared across schools to achieve excellence and equity for all. This in turn helps to ensure that all children achieve the best possible outcomes. There is currently no requirement for head teachers to hold the standard for headship prior to their appointment. Since 2005 there has been an expectation that teachers should meet the standard of headship before they can be appointed as a head teacher by completing either one of two programmes, the Scottish Qualification for Headship or the flexible route to headship, or through the judgment of local authorities as employers. The SQH and FRH programmes are no longer available and were replaced by the inter-headship qualification in 2015, at the same time as the decision was taken to make holding the standard for headship a legal requirement for all permanent head teacher appointments. The standard for headship is part of a suite of professional standards managed by the General Teaching Council that supports the self-evaluation and professional learning of those in or aspiring to leadership roles in schools. Powers were acquired under section 28 of the Education Scotland Act 2016, which amended the 1980 Education Scotland Act by inserting sections 90A and 98DA into the 1980 act, which allows Scottish ministers to make regulations prescribing the standards of education and training needed before a person could be appointed as a head teacher of an education authority, granted or independent school. The committee took evidence on this proposal as part of the development of what became the Education Scotland Act 2016. There was agreement during the passage of the 2016 act that the regulations relating to the independent sector would not be brought forward as we were bringing in full TTS registration for all teachers within the sector. It is not our intention at present to extend the requirement to hold the standard for headship to headteacher appointments in independent schools, and only state and granted schools fall within the scope of the regulations being considered today. It was clear from early discussions with stakeholders and the consultation on the draft regulations that there were some reservations about sufficient numbers of teachers having achieved the standard for headship to support future vacancies when the regulations would come into force. We took on board those concerns in two ways. First, by moving the coming into force date from August 2019 to August 2020, and secondly, by extending the period for which a teacher can be appointed to a headteacher post on a temporary basis without holding the standard from 24 months to 30 months. That provides a temporarily appointed headteacher sufficient time to undertake the inter-headship programme, which is usually completed within 18 months, while giving local authorities reasonable flexibility in terms of workforce planning. The education sector is fully aware of the intended commencement date of August 2020, and local authorities are taking steps to plan, encourage and select teachers to undertake the inter-headship programme. Through the recommendations within the Headteacher Recruitment Working Group report published last November, we are working in partnership with the sector to enhance the support for teachers to encourage them into leadership roles. The Scottish Government fully funds the inter-headship programme. We understand the importance of excellent school leadership and do not want fees to be a barrier to those who want to take the step to a headship role. As of this summer, nearly 800 teachers will have embarked on the inter-headship programme. We are committed to investing in aspiring headteachers and want to provide them with high-quality professional learning. We will continue to fund the inter-headship qualification to the end of this Parliament. Further support will be provided through the enhanced leadership support package, building on the existing suite of programmes managed by Education Scotland. Along with our continued investment in the inter-headship and excellence in headship programmes, along with the headteacher leadership academies, the draft regulations in front of the committee today have therefore been drafted to provide that, from 1 August 2020, only headteachers who have been awarded the standard for headship can be permanently appointed as a headteacher in an education authority or granted in school. There are two exemptions. The first applies to any permanent headteacher who has been appointed to a position in the education authority, granted in school or independent school on or prior to 1 August 2020. For individuals within that category, holding of the standard for headship is not a requirement. The second exemption enables education authorities or managers of granted schools to appoint a person to a headteacher post who has not attained the standard for headship on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding 30 months after 1 August 2020. I am very happy to answer any points in the committee. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I am going to open with Mr Gray. Good morning, cabinet secretary. For the avoidance of doubt, I certainly support the instrument and I think that it is a good move in terms of raising both the standards and the status of the profession of headteacher. I have a concern that I wanted to raise, which is based on the AHS workload survey that the cabinet secretary will be aware of, which he produced quite recently. In that survey, one of the most worrying tables presented is a table that looks at current deputies and principal teachers in primary schools. Their enthusiasm, their keenness to move on to become headteachers, shows a very low level of willingness to consider that move. They clearly see that increased responsibility and accountability is something that they think twice about, perhaps I can put it like that. Clearly, we are introducing a further requirement in order to make that jump, so I wonder what the cabinet secretary has thought about what he can do to address a potential problem in recruitment of headteachers in the future. The first thing—I very much welcome the context in which Mr Gray has made a said his question—I think that the first thing that I need to do is acknowledge the detail of the survey that has come from the AHS and the requirement for us to address that substantively. I think that there are a number of things that we can do. The first is that I very deliberately, in the pay deal that we agreed with the professional associations some weeks ago, extended that to include issues of workload and one element of that was about working with the professional associations collaboratively on tackling the genuine concerns that are expressed about workload. Essentially, I want to embrace the professional associations as partners in trying to address what we can collaboratively and constructively do to tackle the workload issues to address the very perceptions that Mr Gray highlights. The second thing is that I think that we have got to ensure—and this is perhaps less relevant in some aspects of—in some primary schools, but it will be present in many—that there are sufficient career development structures which enable individuals to break down the gap between, for example, being a classroom teacher and being a headteacher. I think that one of the—shortly, we are receiving the recommendations from the panel on career pathways that Mora Bolland has been leading for us in the University of Glasgow. What that is going to give us is some more career development opportunities that will essentially break down that gap that exists, which I accept is for some people a very big gap to contemplate. Even from a deputy to a headteacher is quite a big gap. Those issues will be considered by the SNCT in due course. The third thing is that we have put in place other supports to try to enhance the professional development of individuals, which will enable them to perhaps be more professionally confident in taking on such roles. Interventions such as the Colomber 1400 programme, which is now eligible for deputy headteachers as well as headteachers, is an important contribution in trying to address some of the professional development requirements that individuals will feel they have to be able to progress on to a headteacher role. It is a combination between professional development and the tackling of workload issues that will provide us with some of the means to address the legitimate issues that are raised by the survey. That is all very welcome. Some of you think that one of the problems here is that, depending on the size of school and those kind of issues that, frankly, the salary differential between deputy head and head is sometimes small, in fact, is sometimes nothing at all depending on, as I say, the size of the school and that doesn't reflect the increase in workload. The consideration of workload that you have just described, does that encompass job sizing of primary headteacher and that pay differential as well? Is that part of that? That is part of the work that will be undertaken in implementing the pay and workload agreement that we reached a few weeks ago where I accepted the need to revisit the questions of job sizing for headteachers, which, again, I think there is substantive evidence that there are issues that need to be addressed there. Can I also welcome those measures? I think that they have also been broadly welcomed in principle by many teachers and the associations that represent them. Cabinet Secretary, can I just ask two technical points? You mentioned here that these regulations provide that from 1 August 2020, that that will be the date where they can pick up the headship. How long does it take to undertake this course, and at what stage will you be able to tell the Parliament how many teachers are undertaking that course to meet that date? The course normally takes 12 to 18 months to complete. The inter-headship qualification has been operating since 2015. If I could put on the record the data, in 2015, 119 were qualified or achieved the standard. 2016, 142, 217, 155, 2018, 166 and 2019, 180. As members will recognise, those numbers are rising year on year, which is a very encouraging trend. Interestingly, there is now a much larger differential in 2019 in primary headteachers versus secondary headteachers. In 2015, primary and secondary were pretty 50-50. In 2019, one-third secondary school, which perhaps addresses some of the issues that Mr Gray was raising with me as well, is encouraging trend in terms of the absolute numbers of headteachers that are coming forward. The split is now more weighted, as one would expect, because there are seven times as many primary schools as there are secondary schools weighted more towards primary schools than was the case when we began the standard. I may have misheard from what Liz Smith said, but there is no requirement for an existing headteacher to undertake the standard, but any aspiring headteacher seeking to fill a post subject to the exemptions that I have set out would have to have that by 1 August 2020. It is included in the figure that you have given, because, presumably, it has started on there. That totals over 800. For more understanding, in order to go on the programmes entirely about the individual, is there a gatekeeper somewhere who determines whether you are able to go on the programme given that it is being funded? In those circumstances, how are we ensuring that there is diversity, that men and women are equally able to take up those opportunities? Essentially, eligibility for the programme is determined by local authorities, so they will be identifying candidates as part of their workforce planning that will enable them to take forward. Obviously, individuals would present themselves as willing to do this, and local authorities would consider the potential for individuals to take forward that standard. Do you think that there is a place for monitoring what is happening? You would be concerned if it is a matter of the local authorities, how wide are they spreading the net, how encouraging they are of what they might find it, if they have caring responsibilities or whatever to take that kind of commitment on, or may themselves not have thought about it? I think that we should move on to those issues very carefully. I think that we have recently responded to parliamentary questions about the diversity of the teaching profession and there are issues about the diversity of the teaching profession in general, which we need to consider as a system. I do not think that the issues about eligibility for the inter-hedship programme are any different to those questions that arise out of that analysis. You would be expecting local authorities to be transparent about how they are identifying people. How would you? The last question is just to satisfy my own understanding of that. If somebody is on a 30-month temporary contract and they have not completed the programme, does that mean that they would have to find somebody else to be a headteacher on a temporary programme? I do not think that that would be within the spirit of the regulations. If somebody was trying to endeavour to complete the programme, as Johann Lamont has said, something would have got in the way of caring responsibility or illness or some other circumstance. The regulation is not set in such a fashion that there is no scope for discretion in understanding particular cases. I think that flexibility would exist with local authorities as the employers to make that judgment. You could end up, despite the regulation, with people continuing on temporary contracts over a longer period of time? I think that that would be against the spirit of the regulation. The regulation is saying that, after 1 August 2020, it should be a mandatory requirement to have that standard. If somebody is demonstrating no intention of completing the programme, it would be, in my view, against the spirit of the regulations. If they have commenced the programme and something has got in the way, it is not in the spirit of the regulations. You have somebody who is in a temporary contract on a condition that they do this, but they do not do it. At the end of that, the local authority would need to interview someone else who is in a temporary contract. Does that not create an instability in the school system? I wonder how strong the regulation is against the discretion. We could end up in a position where people do not engage with it for whatever reason and the local authority would have to reappoint. The letter of the regulation says that, after 1 August 2020, an individual must have the inter-hedship standard, unless they are appointed on a temporary period of up to 30 months. There are some hard boundaries on that. The literal answer to Johann Lamont's question is that, at the end of 30 months of a temporary contract, if somebody has not completed the inter-hedship programme, they should not be able to be a head teacher. I do not think that the constraints of the regulation remove discretion to take account of legitimate circumstances that might have stopped somebody from completing within that programme. However, if somebody was not completing the programme just by habitual known participation or non-engagement, the parameters of the regulation would be applied and the local authority would have to get somebody else to be the head teacher. Who may be somebody without qualification either? I think that, just for completeness, I suppose that I should add that, within the nature of workforce planning, such situations would be, I believe that local authorities are trying to avoid situations arising of that type. We now move to agenda item 2, which is the formal debate on motion S5M-17293, head teachers, education and training standards, Scotland regulations 2019. It is in the name of the cabinet secretary. I remind everyone that officials are not permitted to contribute to the formal debate and I ask the cabinet secretary to move the motion. Can I invite any comments from members? Do you wish to say anything further, cabinet secretary? In that case, we move to the question to the committee, which is that motion S5M-17293 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee must report to Parliament on these instruments. Are members content for me, convener, to sign off and report to Parliament on the instrument? Thank you. That concludes our consideration of subordinate legislation. I will spend a few seconds to let the officials change over. We move to agenda item 3. It is final evidence session on the committee's subject choices inquiry and joining the cabinet secretary this morning are Murray McVicker, head of senior phase unit and Andrew Bruce, deputy director of learning director at the Scottish Government. I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee's inquiry. The purpose of education is to provide young people with the skills, knowledge and experiences that will prepare them for their life beyond school and enable them to fulfil their potential. We must ensure that our young people acquire the capacities from their school experiences that will enable them to flourish in our modern complex uncertain world. The national debate that led to the creation of curriculum for excellence envisaged a cohesive 3 to 18 education that paved the way for a broad general education and a senior phase in secondary schools. The broad general education would extend over the period from S1 to S3 and would ensure that young people acquired a breadth of experience across eight curricular areas, expressive arts, health and wellbeing, languages including English, mathematics, religion and moral education, sciences, social studies and technologies. The senior phase was envisaged as a three year experience where young people would be encouraged to remain at school for longer and engage in deeper learning with a broader range of opportunities to develop the skills that are relevant to the wider world. I have listened with interest to the evidence that the committee has gathered. The focus has fallen very heavily on the question of the number of subjects in particular national qualifications studied in S4. I believe that this topic, however, requires broader consideration primarily because, under curriculum for excellence, the senior phase is designed as a three year experience with a focus on what is achieved at the end of school rather than a focus on any given individual year. A critical requirement of curriculum for excellence is that schools must have the flexibility to design a senior phase that meets the needs of its learners, building on the foundations of a strong broad general education, rather than follow the more rigid structure of the pre-CFE era, which was increasingly unsuited to the needs of today's learners. It is therefore inevitable that schools will choose different approaches according to the context in which they are operating. This was made clear in guidance. In 2011, the CFE management board, which included representation from across the education system, published a statement on the senior phase which said that the management board welcomes the emerging picture of bespoke senior phase models. Those show that some schools will plan for five or six subjects in S4, viewing it as a way of facilitating deeper learning, making space for recognising wider achievements and providing scope for taking qualifications over differing timescales, for example, two year hires. Other schools may prefer to offer, for example, eight courses of study in S4, with the option of being presented for all eight in S4 or deferring several subjects in S4, knowing that further study in these subjects will continue in S5. Similarly, some pupils may defer presentation in a subject in S5 until S6. There is broad agreement across the education system that headteachers and schools should have the freedom to design a curriculum that meets the needs of the learners in their schools. It is inevitable that this process will lead to variety around our education system. I appreciate that this is challenging for many, for teachers, for parents and for those of us around this table who grew up in a different model. If we want to have an education system designed to equip our children and young people for the 21st century, it is inevitable that it will look different from what has gone before. However, the crux of this discussion has to be on the quality of the experience that children and young people are receiving in schools across Scotland. It is therefore absolutely right that we should be asking ourselves hard questions about the quality of both the senior phase and the broad general education, and every school in Scotland should be doing so. However, the key point is that the answer to those questions is unlikely to be based on whether a school has six, seven or eight column structures in S4. The answer will reside in the rationale behind the entirety of the secondary school curriculum from the broad general education into the senior phase, the quality of learning and teaching, the different pathways available and the depth and the range of partnerships that provide opportunities for young people. I do not pretend that every school in the country has this issue cracked, but many have, and that is why we have established the regional improvement collaboratives to drive through deeper collaboration. We must continue to challenge our schools to ensure that they are delivering a curriculum of this type, but I am confident that the approach that is being pursued is the correct one. This is backed up by the data. Official statistics on leavers published earlier this year show that attainment to SCQF at level 4 or better has remained broadly stable since 2012-13, whilst attainment at levels 5 and 6 has increased over this period. Last year, 62.2 per cent of school leavers left with a qualification at level 6 or better, up from 55.8 per cent in 2012-13, and work-based provision for young people in the senior phase is growing. The proportion of school leavers attaining vocational qualifications at SCQF at level 5 and above has increased from 7.3 per cent in 2013-14 to 14.8 per cent in 2017-18. Last year, a record proportion of school leavers went on to positive destinations, including work, training or further study. I hope that this information assists the committee with this inquiry and I look forward to addressing the points raised by members. Cabinet secretary, I can invite Ms Smith to open questions. Cabinet secretary, I wonder if I can put attention on to the design of the curriculum for excellence for a minute. We have taken substantial evidence at this committee. Broadly speaking, Education Scotland and SQA have intimated that they are relatively content with the structure. Dr Brown last week had a few issues about the disconnect between broad general education and the senior phase. You have intimated this morning that you are satisfied that the approach is the right one. In some other evidence, particularly among practitioners, we have had a rather different view expressed that Larry Flanagan was very clear when he spoke to the committee that he said that at the time of the design, all the professional associations and the consultation on the new qualifications advocated retaining, upgrading and refreshing standard grades, but that was not amongst the options. We moved straight away to a new qualification system, and he added that he did not feel that there had been sufficient consultation on that. Dr Britton, when he came to the committee, said that the implementation of the senior phase came at a time when there had been an evisceration of support at the local authority level. On behalf of the geographers, we got a comment. The whole thing about BGE in the senior phase is that they were done the wrong way round. People thought that it was a good idea to start in S1 and change the curriculum up the way, but that meant that they were changing things for first, second and third year before we knew what the qualifications were going to be. Cabinet Secretary, at the initial stages of designing the curricular structures, are you absolutely confident that the consultation was comprehensive and that it resulted in the right approach? I am, because at the time of the design of the qualifications, in excess of 1,000 teachers were involved in the consultation and development work around the new qualifications. There was extensive engagement with the profession. I know that there was an issue that predates me that the EIS wanted to seek a delay of one year in the application of the qualifications. My understanding and interpretation of that is that that was about the pace, not the substance, of the reforms that were undertaken. I think that there was extensive consultation. I suppose that one of my reflections is that the longer I serve as education secretary is that I think that there needs to be a lot of time for consultation and there is always a feeling that there could always be more. I am not going to say that there is an absolutely finite, precise formula that drives some of those considerations, but I do think that there was extensive discussion. I think that one of the key issues here is that—and it is an issue that I hope my opening statement indicated that I was open to—one of the fundamental elements of curriculum for excellence is that it must be a cohesive learner journey from 3 to 18, so every part of it has got to have a natural flow and progression through it. We have to be confident that when young people emerge out of what is probably the biggest shift in CFE, which is from the broad general education into the senior phase, that young people are properly equipped for the senior phase. That is the opportunity where we must ensure that there is a cohesive approach for young people. That was certainly very much in my thinking when we developed the benchmarks for the broad general education, which were issued in 2017—I am pretty sure that they were—that we satisfied ourselves and I satisfied myself that the chief examiner and the chief inspector of education were jointly signing off those benchmarks at the summit of the broad general education to make sure that they were the correct platform for young people to progress on to the senior phase. The chief examiner said last week that she felt that there had been some issues about the disconnect between the broad general education and the senior phase. She felt that that disconnect was maybe improving a bit, as in things we are getting a little bit better, but she did acknowledge it. In a sense, the answer that I have just given reinforces that point is that I felt that the benchmarks were necessary to be issued to the education system in confidence 2017. We had to be satisfied that that natural progression that I talked about was being created. The flipside of that answer is that the fact that I felt that I needed to do that indicates that it was perhaps not as seamless as it should have been. That relates fundamentally to an essential part of what the committee is looking at, which is about the strength of the broad general education. In my view, the broad general education must be sufficiently broad and demanding to ensure that young people are properly equipped to progress on to the next stage of their learner's journey in the senior phase. We have to be satisfied that that is being applied across the board within schools in Scotland. The benchmarks that were put in place 2016-17 were designed to give that absolute clarity to the education system. Mr Swinney, I entirely accept the point that you make about the cohesive journey. That is extremely important, but it has been quite a concern in this committee in some of the evidence. I think that it is a majority of evidence. It is not by any means universal, but it is a majority that there is a concern that moving from what is a very broad general education in S1 to S3 does move into something, particularly in core subjects that are much less broad than has been the case in the past. I have listened carefully to what you say about having a three-year programme for S4 to S6. Can I just ask you to reflect on what you feel when you see some of the very considerable downturns in the number of pupils that are taking—in particular, we have had evidence particularly about modern languages—when you see the downturn in some of these core subjects? Are you satisfied that that was an intentional development in the senior phase? I think that some of these factors, particularly the downturn of uptake in modern languages at national 5 level, there is growth in the uptake of modern languages at a higher level. At different stages in the education system, there is a different picture about modern languages uptake, and at higher levels there is an increase in uptake. The issue in S4 is answered perhaps by some of the evidence that Gerry Lyons gave the committee a couple of weeks ago, which indicated that when there was the move to the broad general education and the move away from the 2-2-2 model, modern languages were essentially lost their compulsory status in S4. We did not lose their compulsory status in S3 because they are part of the broad general education as I set out in the eight curricular areas. I acknowledge that issue in S4, but when I look at participation at S5 at higher levels, I see rising participation. I do not think that the hypothesis that Liz Smith put to me this morning is valid, or that it is explained by the removal of compulsion on modern languages up to S4, which was the case when I was at school, but obviously when we moved to the broad general education, that opportunity for breadth and depth of learning was available for young people to the end of S3 in the broad general education, but the opportunities to specialise at later stages were still available to young people and the participation levels at higher indicate a growth in participation. On that point, cabinet secretary, I think that there is an issue for modern languages that has been put to us several times, not just in this inquiry but on other inquiries, that if you drop a language, it is much more difficult to take it up again because of the continuous approach that many people feel is needed for in-depth learning of a language. I think that we have to be very careful about this. I think that there is a genuine concern amongst parents and pupils about the fact that they are asked, and I know that other colleagues will come on to the difference in approaches across schools as to how many subjects they can take in S4. I do believe that that is a very important issue for parents. I draw your attention to some of the evidence that we took from young people who feel that in many circumstances they cannot take the subjects that they want to take and feel that they need to take because that column structure has been restricted. I hear what you say about taking them back up again in S6, but they feel that they want to do them in S4 and that some of their peers are getting more options than they are. Are you concerned about that at all? There are two issues in the question that Liz Smith has just asked me. I quite understand that there will be young people who are unable to make all the choices that they would want to make. I would venture to suggest that that has probably always been a factor in Scottish education. Do you think that it is worse now? I do not think that it is worse now, no. I do not. I think that there will be, just in the design of the deployment of resources and the choices that are made in schools, there will be young people inevitably. I would suggest a small minority who will not be able to have essentially all the choices that they would want to take. That is an inevitability about subject choice in any education system. I cannot, as education secretary, sit here and say to the committee that I can guarantee unfettered choice for every pupil in the country. No local authority leader would be able to sit here or director of education and offer the same thing. The second issue is whether or not there has been a narrowing of choice for young people in general in Scottish education. I do not think that that is the case. I have looked with great care in preparing for this committee some of the choices and options that are available to young people now in Scotland. I want to cite a little bit of primary evidence in this. I was looking at the subject choices or the options choices in, can you say, high school, which is a school that is inspected by Education Scotland. In 2013-14, young people in that school had 20 choices of different courses to take. In 2018-19, that is 46. The reason for citing that, and I could give the committee other examples that I have looked at, is that what the committee needs to wrestle with is whether or not the range of options available to young people has been broadened by CFE, which my contention is that it has, and schools have thought creatively about what learners are interested in doing. How can we most equip young people for the modern language? For example, young people in certain options that I have seen can undertake cyber security courses in school. Cyber security had hardly been invented when John Swinney was making his subject choices in 1978. I use that not to be flippant, but to illustrate that that is the education system responding to the world that young people are now confronted by. The committee has to consider carefully the question of whether there has been a narrowing of choice. I do not think that there has been a narrowing of choice. I think that there has been a broadening of opportunity for young people, but I concede that it looks very different to the type of structure of education that existed when I was going through the education system. That was envisaged by curriculum for excellence. That was part of the purpose of curriculum for excellence. Mae, I have finished my remarks, convener. There is more choice. The trouble is, cabinet secretary, that choice is not necessarily in the core subjects in S4 for an awful lot of pupils. Jim Scott's evidence is very clear about the number of schools in S4 where the core subjects—the traditional subjects—and I am going to use that phrase because I think that they are some of the most important ones—has narrowed the subject choice there. I think that the committee would have to look very carefully at what it deems to be the core choices. As I said in my remarks earlier on, in the broad general education, up to S3—so that is longer than I got when I was at school—we were young people having an entitlement to a curriculum that delivers on the expressive arts, health and wellbeing, languages including English, mathematics, religious and moral education, sciences, social studies and technologies. For a longer period, young people have access to a broader general education. I would venture to suggest that what I have covered there is more than what one might call the core curriculum. There are opportunities for young people to develop what they have learnt in the broad general education to a further, deeper level over a three-year phase in the senior phase. Some schools operate on a model, for example, that offers young people three years of choices in the senior phase in which they have six options in each year. Over a three-year phase, they have 18 options, 18 routes that they can pursue, which allows them to make different choices at different times to take forward their learning. The one point—I think that this is something that I would certainly want to take further advice about, specifically on languages—is whether there is a substantive point in a young person who, for example, has been learning French as part of the broad general education, but then does not take French in S4 but returns to French in S4. If they are at any disadvantage in taking forward that opportunity, I would need to take further advice on that question from educationalists who would advise me on those questions. I am saying this about languages, but I know that young people will not take a subject at that particular stage and return to it later on. I have not seen any data that says to me that they are at an inherent disadvantage and then pursue that at a later stage in the senior phase. Before I get to my own question, Cabinet Secretary, I just wanted to pursue a point that Liz Smith raised. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a broader choice of options of subjects and the number of those subjects that it is possible to pursue? I fully accept that, when I was at school as when you were at school, we had fewer options and subjects to choose from, but in S4, when I was at school, I could choose and pursue nine subjects, I guess maybe eight or nine when you were at school. We could pursue more subjects, although from a lesser menu or a narrower menu. There is a difference in choice between what you can choose from and how much you can choose. Is that right? I do not think that I agree with that. It is not. In our day, of course, there were subtle differences between Mr Gray's era and my era, but not that much. I should not be that ingracious this morning. I would describe the education structure system that I was in, in what one might call the senior phase, as a bit of a triangle. Your role-grades were broad and it narrowed to your hires and narrowed even further to your six-year studies. The model that I have just described to Liz Smith of a three-year senior phase enables it to be more of a square than a triangle. That is a clever answer, but it is not really true, because the example that you gave to Liz Smith would imply that, across the senior phase, a young person could complete 18 qualifications. I do not think that that is true. That is the model in South Asia. That they could complete 18 exams. Six choices in each of the years and that is the model that they have opted for. We have certainly heard of a very significant variety in what young people can choose in S4. You have just given us a new example. We have heard of schools where young people can choose six or seven or eight subjects in S4, a handful where they can only choose five, not very many, but some. We have also heard a lot of evidence about the variety and the way the curriculum is structured and not just the way the senior phase is structured. We have heard of schools that operate the three-plus-three structure that is under Pindure remarks this morning, but others continue effectively with a two-plus-two structure. Others operate a two-plus-one, plus two-plus-one, others operate a two-plus-one, plus three. We have heard examples where young people are making course choices at the start of S2, others are making course choices at the start of S3 and others are not making course choices until the start of S4. We have heard examples of curricular structures that are still timetable in columns in the more traditional way and others where pupils are able to make a completely free choice. The curriculum is structured from that. My question really is, at what point does that degree of curricular flexibility undermine curricular cohesion and actually become curricular chaos? I wouldn't characterise it in the way that Mr Gray ended his question, but part of what is an inherent part of curriculum for excellence and this was what the education system debated. In this Parliament, this committee was actively involved in the consideration of this point, was essentially to move away from what was judged to be a rigid curriculum to a more flexible curriculum. I think that that's the fundamental strategic shift that was discussed in the national debate. Was that the right thing to do? Scotland opted to undertake that strategic shift to create more flexibility. The type and range of models that Mr Gray talked about is essentially the living out of that flexibility on curricular choice. A lot of what I'm also trying to do in the system is encourage a greater focus on empowerment in schools, which I think is a necessary element in making sure that flexibility can be deployed in an effective way. There are two essential requirements that have to be judged by any school in wrestling with the issues that Mr Gray raised about the structure of the curriculum. The first is the formulation of an educational rationale for pursuing a particular course of action. I'm not going to sit here and say that option A is superior to option B in that curricular choice. As long as they've both got a curricular rationale and it can be demonstrated educationally, that will satisfy me. Secondly, schools in formulating their curricular approach must engage with their parental community, their local economic environment, their local community environment and their pupils to make sure that the curriculum suits the needs of everybody within that discussion. That will lead inevitably to differences and variety around the country, but I think that that's a product of a curriculum that was designed to move away from rigidity to flexibility and an empowered system where we put much more of the decision making into the hands of educators. That begs the question then who is responsible for the oversight to ensure that across the piece those qualities that you've described are being sustained. When Education Scotland gave evidence to the committee, they were asked about this wide variety of curricular structure, school structure, course choice structure, all of that. They were asked about the breadth of variety and their response was that they didn't know because that wasn't their responsibility. That was their responsibility for schools. When SQA gave evidence, they were asked a similar kind of question. Perhaps more understandably they made the point that their responsibility was the exam system rather than the curriculum and the running of schools. My question is, who does have oversight of this? Is it you or have Education Scotland misunderstood their role in this? The way I'd answer that question is that this is ultimately a shared responsibility, but ultimately I am the Education Secretary and I'm accountable for the performance of Scottish education and that's a responsibility that I accept unreservedly. It is a shared responsibility because a school has to satisfy itself that it's got a good educational rationale for its curricular choice and that to me is a product of the leadership within the school, the engagement of staff, the engagement with the pupil and the parent community and also with the local economic community. A local authority has a statutory responsibility for the delivery of education and the quality of education at the local level, so it's got a legitimate interest in satisfying itself that curricular choices made in individual schools are appropriate. The local authorities have taken different stances. Some local authorities have said that we will operate cohesive timetables and subject choices to try to help to broaden choice, a perfectly understandable model. Other local authorities have said that individual schools should decide what their curricular approach should be. In my view, they are perfectly legitimate as long as there is enough challenge in the system to satisfy ourselves educationally about these issues. Education Scotland does exercise a responsibility in their respect because they are inspecting schools and making a judgement about the curricular strength of individual schools. Some schools come out of that assessment well, others come out of it poorly, so a judgement has been applied about what does an individual model look like. From that, Education Scotland will be deducing general licence and reflections, which inform policy upon which I am advised by Education Scotland. Obviously, I have a responsibility because I am looking at those questions in relation to what guidance does the system need. I have said to the chief inspector of education that, back in 2016, I do not think that there is enough clarity about what the broad general education should achieve for young people, which is why he issued guidance to the system about the nature of the broad general education and the definitive guidance on curriculum for excellence. I have asked Education Scotland to lead the process of ensuring that good sound evidence to educational practice is shared more widely across the education system. It is a shared responsibility, and I do not say that to duck the responsibility, because I have prefaced my remarks by saying that I am ultimately responsible for the performance of Scottish education. I think that, professionally, it links a bit to the agenda item that we discussed as our first item today about the role of leadership. Ultimately, a headteacher has got to demonstrate, and in my experience, headteachers are very keen to demonstrate, the educational strength of what they are leading for young people. Just for completeness about the SQA, I think that the SQA is slightly—I do not have quite as intimate a responsibility for this because they are independently certifying qualifications, but as an education system we must make sure—this is my view and I am applying it—our curriculum should drive the system, not our qualifications. To be fair, the SQA did say that it collectively had responsibility. Education Scotland, a fear said they had none for what was happening in schools. The position we have is that it is okay to have a great flexibility, which means that the subject choice, timetable and curricular structure, even broad general education being two or three years, is different from school to school. We have several hundred secondary schools, and the way in which we have oversight of that is through the inspection system, but we know that some schools have not been inspected for 15 years. Is that not a bit of a concern given that you have ultimate accountability? I do not think that Mr Gray fairly characterises the answers that I have just given, because I talked about the different shared responsibilities. I talked about the fact that individual schools must be well-led institutions that are engaged with pupil and parental community and staff communities on ensuring that a high-quality, broad general education and an appropriate senior phase is delivered for all young people. In secondary schools in Scotland, there is accountability number one. Accountability number two is that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for the delivery of education. Local authorities should be constructively and creatively involved with schools on making sure and supporting schools to fulfil that objective. Accountability number three is that Education Scotland has a big role to play, along with local authorities, in regional improvement collaboratives that are there to give a platform for exemplar practice. There will also be other collaborations that take place. I was at an event at Duncan Riggs secondary school in East Kilbride the other week there, where numerous schools were presenting in workshop fashion some of the enhancement work that they were undertaking on curricular development. One of the themes was on broad general education, a fascinating piece of work that has been done by four secondary schools in South Lanarkshire in the East Kilbride area about how they are challenging collectively their broad general education. There is accountability number three. Ultimately, there are the inspections that are undertaken. Just because a school is not being inspected by Education Scotland does it mean that there has not been an active debate about the nature of the curriculum in the school and how that is developed by the leadership of the school, by staff and by engaging with the parental community. Who knows that that has happened? Local authorities report on the performance of education. We are doing that on a habitual basis. We are looking at all of those questions through the focus on the national improvement framework on improving Scottish education. All of those elements of the work are part and parcel of making sure that we are constantly challenging the way in which we deliver education to make sure that it meets the needs of young people in the 21st century. I would like to pick up on Ian Gray's point on the schools that adhere to the 222 structure, because they cannot be delivering the BGE as was meant to be intended. What is the answer for those schools? I appreciate that you said, Cabinet Secretary, that you are not going to say that option A is superior to option B, but how can you be sure that the BGE is being delivered in those kinds of contexts? That is where my answer to Ian Gray is relevant. That school has to be able to demonstrate the educational rationale that has led them to the conclusion that they can deliver what is envisaged as the entitlement of young people through that curricular model that they take forward. Ultimately, to demonstrate that that addresses the entitlements that young people will have through the curriculum for excellence. That has to be an active process of challenge, which schools must be involved in with their parental community. Ultimately, many of those judgments will be influenced by the outcomes that are achieved for young people, which the school has to demonstrate how those outcomes have been strengthened as a consequence of what activity is being undertaken. I would like to focus now on the role of the SQA and the hours allocation that are given to NQ courses. We heard last week that the rationale for sticking with that 160 hours was simply because it was used for the legacy qualifications like intermediate 2. Do you think that the SQA needs to look again at that hour allocation to help schools with timetabling to get a bit more consistency? One of the problems with the 160 hours allocation point is that it rather assumes that nothing that people have learnt in the broad general education is of any relevance to the qualification that has now been undertaken. A young person will not succeed in that five maths if they do not know what one-on-one is, and I venture to suggest that they learn that a lot earlier than the start of S4 in a secondary school. I think that there is an assumption made that prior learning is not really relevant to that calculation of the 160 hours. I think that that has constrained some thinking about how courses should be delivered. There is, however, another important element about the 160 hours, which is about what is the volume of activity that leads to qualifications that it is advisable and advantageous for young people to be undertaken for their own health and wellbeing in S4. Some of the evidence that I have looked at has led individual schools or local authorities to perhaps reduce the number of national qualifications that are undertaken in S4 has been to do with an assessment of the degree of pressure and stress that was being endured by young people. I understand and respect that as a legitimate judgment. On that point, Cabinet Secretary, with regard to the removal of the outcome and assessment standards that was brought in by the Government to reduce, in part, teacher workload, have you carried out any assessment on how that has impacted on pupils in terms of their mental health and wellbeing? We have not done that specifically on that specific exercise, but we are taking forward a range of different steps in assessing the mental health and wellbeing of young people. It is an integral part of the approach and support of schools to make sure that that has been supported in the assistance of pupils. Cabinet Secretary, if I could ask a couple of questions. There is no doubt that one of the concerns of the committee has been the evidence presented to us about the demographic correlation between subject choices and the area in which a school is based. You mentioned that curriculum has to be built around the economics and working with the local community with what is appropriate. Given that evidence and what you said, how do we ensure that societal inequality is not being built into the system if it continues to be based on demographics? How do we ensure that really good pupils in more disadvantaged areas have the opportunities to succeed and that those who are not as academically capable are being supported in the areas to have an articulation route or access to modern apprenticeships? The committee will, I am sure, be exhausted by hearing me saying that the direction of Scottish education is about delivering excellence and equity for all. That is a summary point of our aspirations, but it has to be turned into a tangible practical reality in every locality in our country. I would be deeply concerned if I saw a situation in which, by the nature of social and economic background, young people were not getting access to opportunities. I do not think that that is what is happening and I do not see the evidence. I can see young people in areas of multiple deprivation having access to a good quality range of options based on their interests and their perspectives and their capacities, but I remain open to being certain that that is the case. It has to be the case because young people have to have the opportunities to progress in whichever way they wish to. The learner journey for those individuals has to be appropriate and designed for those young people. For some of those young people, it will be about securing modern apprenticeship. For others, it will be about securing university entrance qualifications. In whichever circumstance, their aspirations should be fulfilled. The nature and location of the background of their school or environment should not be an impediment to that. You have discussed today about the variety that there is across the country in terms of the number of choices at S4, and you have just mentioned there in more detail about that. I just wonder if you can say something more about the kind of criteria that different schools might be using or whether the Government or Education Scotland gathers a picture of the kind of criteria that schools are using when they come to that decision as it is six or seven subjects in S4. Fundamentally, that judgment has to be driven by a dialogue between the school and the people in the parental community. Fundamentally, that is relevant. The judgment should be based on the necessity to ensure that young people have a suitable breadth of opportunity and a breadth of choice in the routes that they can pursue. Those would strike me as being the fundamental issues that have to be considered at a local level. The importance of understanding the context within which schools are operating, the economic opportunities that may well be available to young people is also a critical factor. That dialogue and relationship to the business community, particularly through developing Scotland's young workforce, which has now been taken forward with tremendous enthusiasm in different parts of the country, should structure the choices and judgments that are made. You mentioned there that one of the factors has to be about ensuring that there is sufficient breadth. In that case, do you feel that there should be a minimum number on offer? A small number of schools offer five and fourth year, so we are trying to pin you down to tell what those schools want to do. Do you feel that the breadth is dependent on there being any minimum number of subjects offered in fourth year? There has to be suitable breadth offered for young people. In the guidance that the chief inspector issued, I said in my earlier comments that the curriculum management board envisages a range between five and eight. Anything that is reduced below that would raise some serious questions. I am not sure that I would understand the educational rationale for such an approach, but that is a material factor in a judgment at that point. In terms of the group of people who leave at the end of S4, and I appreciate, as you have said yourself, that is a much smaller group than it was 20 or 30 years ago as a share of the school population. Does the number of subjects offered in fourth year have an impact on the number of qualifications or the opportunities that they can come out of school with? Are there other routes available to them in fourth year that would compensate for that? The nature of education provision is changing. One of the words that I used in my introductory remarks was the importance of the partnerships that are established, because increasingly schools are now operating with a much greater sense of partnership working beyond the school boundaries. Relationships with colleges are critical in broadening the opportunities that are available for young people. Although there are young people who are staying on longer in schools, the overwhelming majority of young people are now staying on to complete their education to S6 within schools, they will not be in schools all the time. They will spend part of that week in colleges or in other settings. Although the school provides the anchor for the education of young people, they are drawing on relationships with a whole range of other organisations, which also enhances the choices and the opportunities that are available for young people. Obviously, there will be some young people who want to go off to pursue those opportunities full-time by leaving at S4. My judgment about the education system is that the system is very much more focused today on the destinations that young people are going on to. They want to be satisfied that young people are going on to good destinations. Schools will work very hard in partnership with Skills Development Scotland councillors that are available within schools to make sure that young people are making considered judgments about what their next opportunities will be, even if they decide to leave at S4, which the prevailing view is that most young people will stay on beyond that. It is important that that quality of advice and information and support is available to young people to enable them to make the wisest choice possible. I want to ask first about a specific group of young people who looked after children. Cells has told us that about 75 per cent of looked after children will leave school in fourth year. That represents a challenge that the curriculum has delivered over three years. You would have an aspiration that young people may choose to stay on, but their circumstances may lend themselves to that. What is the answer to that? There will be young people who will leave school at the end of fourth year. How do we ensure that there is enough opportunity in the fourth year to allow young people to leave with a reasonable set of qualifications? I would be satisfied that young people have access to a range of opportunities in S4 to be able to acquire a good range of qualifications. I think that the specific question that John Lamont raises with me about looked after children is a very deep and challenging question that we are committed to and actively working to address. I took part in a really fantastic Cels's education conference just a couple of weeks ago, which was focusing on how we can improve even further the positive impact of education on looked after children. Progress has been made in recent years. The data demonstrates that looked after children are achieving better educational outcomes today than they were 10 years ago, but it is still not good enough. I readily concede that. The opportunities to be successful in that are tied up with making sure that those young people have a curricular approach that meets their needs and supports them in their aspirations. The flexibility of curriculum, for example, enables that to be the case. Young people will be able to make a range of choices, not just about what national qualifications are called, but a range of other opportunities and awards that will give them foundations upon which they can build life. You can see the contradiction that it has to be over the three years, and we know that the most disadvantaged young people will leave at the end of fourth year. That follows on from Professor Scott's research, which suggests that the most disadvantaged young people are leaving with fewer qualifications than they did in the past. Those are big issues. I wonder whether you would make a commitment to look at that in terms of the argument around the three-year curriculum, but for some of the most disadvantaged young people, that might be compounding problems for them. Yes, I will. It is an issue that concerns me, hence my active engagement with CELSIS and the Government's support CELSIS to undertake important and valuable education work for looked-after children. The data that was highlighted at the CELSIS education conference was demonstrating that we can make significant enhancements in the performance of those young people. However, it has to be achieved with the requisite amount of support and assistance to enable young people to do that. The committee in its inquiry will look at the range of different awards and recognitions of achievement that young people can have access to. One of the schools that I visited recently was Bellshill Academy, where one of the subjects that they make available, the options that they make available to young people within the curriculum is the Duke of Edinburgh's award. The pupils explained to me the benefits that they got from that. The headteacher and her staff were explained to me afterwards that, in many respects, they find the Duke of Edinburgh's award. The Duke of Edinburgh's award equips those young people with their resilience to deal with the challenges that they face, which is of immense value to them. That will not register on national qualifications, but it is providing a capacity and a capability for those young people, which will be beneficial for them. It is important that, in the inquiry, we look at the range of different opportunities and options that are designed to strengthen the life chances of young people. I think that we would want to make sure that those range of options were applied equally across different schools. For example, if you were able to establish that the range of options that transpires in a less disadvantaged school, you would get a range of what would be called core subjects to access. I would suggest implications for some young people in disadvantaged areas who could achieve very significant levels of qualification. On the point of the nature of core subjects, my view is very firmly that the broad general education provides that coverage of what one might call core subjects. I would be interested in the committee's definition of what it considers to be core subjects as part of this inquiry. I think that that flows through into the options that are available for young people in the senior phase by a combination of the national qualifications and the other awards that are available to young people. There is a whole argument around qualification or certification for all that we may not deal with here. I will ask you about specifically around one area where we have been given quite a lot of evidence. It is around multilevel teaching. As you know, Larry Flanagan described as an explosion in multilevel teaching. We know evidence from a focus group of teachers. That was a significant consent to them. It was not something any longer that was by exception but was increasingly the norm. Do you believe that it is acceptable for it to become the norm or is this something that you are going to keep under investigation? I will be interested to look further to the question. I have not seen any data that would allow me to make a judgment about whether there has been an explosion or not. I do not think that that data exists. It is reasonable to suggest that the general secretary of the EIS may have an awareness of that and would not say it lightly. Would you concern you if there were an explosion in multilevel teaching? To come to a view that there has been an explosion, there would have to be some degree of quantification. I will look carefully at those issues. In principle, I have not seen any educational argument that says that there is inherently damaging about multilevel teaching. Multilevel teaching has been part of the Scottish education system for a long time, maybe all time. Not routinely. I can understand by exception. I would like a commitment from you that you would research this and that you would look at whether there is an issue in particular subjects with some evidence that would suggest particular sciences, putting a 4 and a 5 higher and advanced higher. It might be a timetabling convenience but it is an educational challenge and teachers have told us that. The important test of this is about the educational challenge and the educational issues involved in multilevel teaching. Multilevel teaching has been around the education system for all the time that I can remember. I have never heard anybody argue that educationally there is something wrong with multilevel teaching. To forgive me, do you think that it is acceptable for somebody to try and teach advanced higher physics, higher physics and that 5 and that 4 in a one class? Is that an optimal environment for a young person to learn in? It depends on the context. I have seen examples of teaching in Scotland where, for example, different levels of teaching have been undertaken in a classroom setting with a number of professionals involved in that teaching. Supporting young people through some science licence, which has been a multilevel science licence supported by a number of teachers and a number of technicians, providing a very active, engaged learning environment for young people. Educationalists are delivering that. It did not look to me like a timetabling convenience but I am very happy to explore it and look into it in greater detail. Fundamentally, if there has been an educational disadvantage of multilevel teaching, it is something that has been around Scottish education for a long, long time. I am old enough to remember when there was a physics principal teacher, a biology principal teacher, a chemistry principal teacher and that they had higher classes, O-grade classes and so on. It may have happened on occasion. I do not accept that it was the norm and I think that what we are trying to establish is whether it is becoming the norm. It would be really helpful if there was some research done on that. The separate question is an issue of equity. If you are in a school where you have a very large senior cohort, you could end up with very little multilevel teaching because you have the numbers to make up the classes. In more disadvantaged areas, you could end up in a position where it is the norm for you to be taught in a group that is multilevel, which compounds, in my view, disadvantage. Is this something that you are willing to look at? I certainly will look at that because I do not want any disadvantage, but there are, of course, alternative models that are brought forward. For example, I was talking to a young man yesterday at the Caritas awards ceremony who was explaining to me that he comes from a school at St Munga's academy in the Gallogate, where there was no provision for advanced higher maths. He was able to undertake that at the Advanced Hires Hub at Glasgow Caledonia University, where he was in a class with other advanced higher students from a number of different areas around the city of Glasgow in what I consider to be an excellent educational innovation in the school. That is provided for the city of Glasgow. It has an amount of critical mass that enables that to be put in place, but there are other models of that type that are taken forward in different fashions around the country. I accept that and I have the privilege to learn about the Glasgow Caledonian model, and I understand that all schools cannot offer every subject. The question is whether you are more likely in a school in a disadvantaged area to be in a multilevel class and to have to travel to do a variety of subjects. Do you accept that that in itself is perhaps amplifying disadvantage? I accept the challenges of it, but if you are in a position where a school is routinely, because of the constraints upon it, organising multilevel teaching where other schools are not and where young people have to travel, do you not accept that if you are going to do an equality impact assessment in that, you might be able to identify disadvantage? A very smart young person in one school has not been taught in a multilevel class and a very smart young person in another has routinely been taught in a multilevel class? Fundamentally, there are some educational inequalities issues to wrestle with in this question. If you take the example of the young man that I was talking about yesterday, if he wanted to advance higher maths at St Munger's academy, he might have been told by the head teacher, I'm sorry, we can't offer him. I accept that the solution for that young man is an excellent one and that it's better than the choice that you can't do at all. What I'm asking you to explore is whether those solutions disproportionately are for young people in disadvantaged areas and particularly the one in multilevel teaching, because that's of a different order. I'm trying to be helpful in the way that I was answering that question a second ago because all of those questions have to be considered together. If that young man had been unable to get that course delivered in St Munger's academy and there was no other option, I accept that he would be at a disadvantage, but there's another option available to him which enables him to do that. That involves him travelling, so there may be an element of disadvantage involved in that because he's got to move about. Equally, the young people that I've met at the Caledonian University Hub told me they loved coming to the Caledonian University Hub because they're in a university environment and they didn't feel like school pupils any longer, so they were loving it. I don't think that any of those issues are neatly compartmentalised, but what I do give Johann Lamont the commitment to is that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in tolerating a situation where young people are unable to fulfil opportunities because of disadvantage. That's what I'm trying to attack at all times and I give the commitment to the committee that I'll do exactly that. You'll be willing to then specifically to research this question of multilevel teaching and where it's most prevalent. I'll look carefully at what the committee considers on this point. As I say, I don't think that multilevel teaching has been part of Scottish education. I will look carefully at the issues involved in it, but I've not seen yet any evidence of educational disadvantage. You would accept in our evidence from the focus groups and from the general secretary that they have identified it as a problem. I recognise what you've heard, yes. I don't see, Cabinet Secretary, how you can not see evidence and you don't then look for it. It doesn't seem very satisfactory. Again, I would add my voice in terms of actually seeing some research because my experience in my own local authority, having been a school pupil there, not all that long ago, was that things have certainly changed where being in multilevel classes was something that was done when absolutely necessary before it is now something that seems to happen on a fairly routine basis. I would ask you to look at that. I'll consider that. I'm interested to go back to the previous point that you were making about accountability, particularly the example of South Ayrshire. Is the 18 subjects model something that happens in every school in that authority? I believe it to be, yes. Where was that decision taken and do you think that it's right for local authorities to tell all schools within their authority how many subjects they should be offering each year? I understand the discussion took place between the local authorities, the headteachers and the parental communities and they came to those conclusions. Would you then expect that same decision-making process to happen in all 32 local authorities in Scotland? No. I think that, crucially for me, schools have to be satisfied with the model that has been deployed because they are the educators. As Mr Mundell will be familiar from my wider agenda on education issues, I believe that schools should be the determinants of more and more of their curricular choices. If the model, for example, was to have been imposed on schools without their consent, I would not find that acceptable, but if schools conclude in a discussion involving their parental and pupil communities and with the local authority that that's the appropriate approach to take, then I would leave them to take that judgment. To be absolutely clear, do you think that it was wrong for a local authority to set a mandatory number of subjects for schools in its authority? If it did that without dialogue with the schools involved, yes. On rural schools, South Ayrshire is a neighbouring authority to the one that I represent. If they are able to offer that consistency across an area that takes in some more urban communities and some more rural communities, why it wouldn't be possible to see that offered elsewhere and whether you'd have a comment on that? Just the variability between what's offered in rural schools and what's offered in schools in a more urban setting, why South Ayrshire would think that it was appropriate to have a standardised approach that would cover both rural and urban communities to make sure that there was an equality of opportunity, yet other local authorities would seem to find it more difficult to offer that consistency? Obviously, as I said in my answers, those are matters that I think should be primarily decided at school level. If there is a collaboration amongst schools within a local authority area to come to an agreed position that involves schools in that discussion, then I think that's perfectly acceptable, but it's obviously up to individual school communities to make those judgments. Does it concern you that in some rural schools they are struggling to offer the same number of choices and that they are, in effect, offering a smaller menu of choices as well? Does that concern you? I would be concerned if there was a reduced menu of choices being available to young people and if there are examples that Mr Mundell is concerned about, I'd happily consider any particular examples of that. However, when I was visiting Dalbyty High School, which I conceded as not in Mr Mundell's constituency, I saw a pretty broad curricular offering being made available there, including the rather surprising sight of walking down a corridor in the school past the usual arrangement of computer suites and home economics rooms to walk into a full motor engineering garage at the end of the corridor, which was part of their offering of applied engineering skills because of the challenges in the rural area of young people being able to access college courses because of all the issues of travel and distance with which Mr Mundell will be familiar. Obviously, I'm very happy to explore any particular situations that Mr Mundell wants to make to my attention, but I do think that schools make a real endeavour to provide that breadth of opportunity. I guess that highlights my own point, which is if they are able to do that at Dalbyty High School within part of Dumfries and Galloway, why would pupils right across the region not expect the same range of choices? I'm sure that there will be things that go on at other schools within the locality that are not going on in Dalbyty High School because choices will be made locality by locality. Do you not see that that creates a little bit of a lottery for young people when it comes to the options that they want to pursue? You couldn't, for example, easily travel from Moffitt, Locker Bay or Langeham or Anand to Dalbyty on a regular basis to access that course, just like travelling to the college might be difficult? I totally accept that, in rural Scotland, some of those choices can be a bit more difficult because of rurality. I represent a rural area and I know exactly those challenges, but there are models that can be deployed to try to ensure that the broadest possible choice is available to young people. I stress if there are issues that are of concern about the availability of course choices, I'll happily explore those. However, we have taken other measures to try to expand the access to different options. The Government invested in a joint venture with the Western Isles Council on the EastScroll, which is now supporting the delivery of education in about 22 local authority areas around the country where learning is being deployed digitally across a whole range of different subjects. There are 21 local authorities. There is a whole range of different subjects that are able to be deployed through that medium, which can be of assistance, and De Friesian Galloway is one of the local authorities that is receiving courses through the school measure. There are not every schools in the position to offer them, but I'll write to you separately. Cabinet Secretary, you said earlier that the curriculum should drive the agenda, not qualifications. You also said earlier that we are achieving record exam passes in positive destinations, so I guess that would indicate that the curriculum is working. I wanted to go back to the schools having a flexible approach to the senior phase. You said that they should set the agenda according to the needs of their community rather than the local authorities imposing structures on them. Do you feel that there is enough encouragement given to parents and local communities to have a say in that curriculum or subject choices? Is that a practical or workable arrangement? I think that it is practical and workable because the committee has heard itself of parental dialogue that has taken place to formulate agreement around curriculum choices that are made. The discussions that the committee had two weeks ago with a range of local authority representatives, a number of whom had been headteachers and had presided over this process, demonstrates that it is practical and plausible to do exactly that and of enormous value to do that. Is that really up to the school to encourage that? Yes, it is. In the national improvement framework, we lay a very heavy emphasis on parental involvement in all aspects of education and educational choice. The committee is to look at the national improvement framework. We have a distinctive element about parental involvement, which is not just about who is going to be a member of the parent council this year. It is about active involvement in dialogue with parents, about what formulates the curriculum and what should be its components. I think that dialogue helps to address some of the other issues that the committee has heard about whereby it will seem different to parents to what many of them will have experienced. As I have said a couple of times already this morning, the curriculum that is available today in Scottish education is very different from the one that I experienced. The best way to engage parents in that discussion and debate is to make sure that they have an active sense of what is the formulation of the curriculum and how it should be taken forward. If there was evidence of an inequality in the system, either one that was emerging or one that existed for sometimes such as around subject availability, where would the responsibility lie for identifying that? Would it lie with Education Scotland? Where it would emerge is in the discussion around the strength and efficacy of the curriculum of an individual school, because ultimately this is about a school-by-school choice. As I have laboured through my evidence this morning, schools are offering different curricular approaches. We took a strategic decision as a country to move away from our rigid prescribed curriculum and into a more flexible curriculum. By taking that decision we essentially opened up the possibility for variety and within that individual schools must be satisfied that they are taking the correct curricular approach. The accountability and scrutiny of all that comes at a number of different levels. It comes at school level, in their discussion with parents and pupils. It comes at local authority level, in the interaction with the schools as to whether local authorities feel in their professional education expertise that the needs of young people are being effectively met. It comes through the work that we share through Education Scotland on delivering best practice and highlighting good practice and also on the inspection evidence that emerges. You said earlier on that ultimately, as Cabinet Secretary for Education, you are responsible. Who takes it to you? I accept what you are saying, but this is about giving as much flexibility to individual schools as possible. If a national trend appears to be emerging or to have existed in the first place, it is beyond the issue of individual schools. If we can say that schools that all follow a particular demographic disposition are all disadvantaged by one particular issue such as what we have discussed around subject availability, surely there comes a point where I would assume that Education Scotland is their responsibility to take it to you as the Cabinet Secretary and say that this appears to be a national problem. This is not something isolated to one or two local authorities or one or two schools. There is a clear trend across the country here. If it is a national problem, surely our national education agency has a responsibility to identify it, to look into whether or not that is actually the case and ultimately to take it to yourself. That is what Education Scotland is doing in its inspection activity, where Education Scotland is looking at the criteria that are looked at, the quality indicators that are looked at in inspections, a leadership of change, learning, teaching and assessment, ensuring wellbeing and quality and inclusion, and raising attainment and achievement. All those quality indicators are relevant to the nature of the curricular choice that has been undertaken by a school. If Education Scotland sees a pattern emerging out of inspections, then that is obviously an issue that they would raise. There is a second element of Education Scotland's work, which is my view a crucial product of the inspection, is about what licence are deduced from the inspection evidence to inform policy frameworks. However, I do not view the task as exclusively that for Education Scotland. Local authorities will have a perspective on that. That was one of the reasons why professional associations will have a perspective. It was for that reason that I created the Scottish Education Council, which I chair, which brings together, among others, Education Scotland, the SQA, Directors of Education, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and representatives of the regional improvement collaboratives and the professional associations and the general teaching council and young people and parents, so that we can have a forum in which those trends can be considered and assessed and I can build cohesion around what are the right steps to take forward. Fundamentally, curriculum for excellence was created as a product of extensive dialogue to achieve a consensus within Scottish Education, and that is the spirit in which I am trying to take matters forward. To look at one specific trend, the one that has come up a couple of times this morning, and I raised it with Education Scotland when they were in, the times almost two years ago now, through a pretty simple series of freedom of information requests, published the fact that schools in Scotland's most deprived communities were offering their pupils, on average, a choice between 17 subjects at higher, and schools in our least deprived or most privileged communities were offering, on average, a choice between 23 hires. Now, not to get bogged down in the absolute specifics of those numbers, do you acknowledge that there is a gap in the availability of hires that is correspondent to the level of deprivation in the community of schools located? I would have to look carefully at whether there is a pattern there, because I think what depends also on the choices that are made about where we are judging the deprivation to exist. Are we judging the deprivation to exist based on the location of the school or the home residence of the pupils? That will have a difference because you will have schools located in what will be judged to be areas of multiple deprivation, but their pupil cohort might not be exclusively emerging with pupils coming from deprived backgrounds and conversely the other way around. I think also we have to look at some of the issues that we have raised already about pooling arrangements for the provision of certain courses because of numbers of pupils. There may be, if I think about the city of Perth that I represent, or I represent part of the city of Perth, the four secondary schools in the city operate some shared arrangements. It is important to ensure that young people have access to broader choice. School A does not provide biology, but school B will. It will not show up in school A's profile, but it will show up in school B's profile. I am certainly very open to exploring the questions about deprivation, because, as I said fundamentally, I do not want young people in Scotland to be inhibited in their opportunities to progress because of the background from which they have come. I appreciate that. How should it then be explored? That gets back to my original question. Surely if this evidence is emerging and what the Times has done is not unique, Professor Jim Scottson is essentially the same thing, others have done the same, EIS has expressed concern about this. Surely then the responsibility goes to Education Scotland to identify whether this is in fact a national issue, whether there is a trend here. I am just not clear where else it would lie if research was to be commissioned. Surely it would be Education Scotland who would do that and would take it back to yourself. I am not in any way trying to be obtuse here, but these are not neatly compartmentalised issues. Curriculum design, for example, the ultimate policy responsibility for curriculum design rests with the Scottish Government and rests with me as the education secretary. Obviously, I am significantly advised on that respect by Education Scotland. I do not think that it is about compartmentalising it into one institution. I accept that these are material issues to be considered and I am very happy to explore them. I appreciate that Education Scotland would not accept that this was an issue, so it is certainly worth exploring. One thing that Alan Armstrong mentioned when he was giving evidence to us said that the Scottish Government has started commissioning research into the whole earning offer in schools across qualifications. That was in response to my asking about the availability of hires. Would you be able to give us any more detail on exactly what that research is? Will that research cover the questions that I have asked around the availability of hires and its relationship with the deprivation of a school's catchment area? I would have to refresh my memory about the details of all that is involved in that exercise. It is looking at breadth of offer, but, crucially, it is not just about national qualifications and other opportunities and awards. It is assessing the spread of the debate that I have advanced in my opening remarks to the committee this morning. I do not think that we can just look at it through the prism of national qualifications. It has to be a broader analysis and that is what the exercise is looking at just now. For completeness, that is a survey of the Scottish Government's senior phase headteacher survey. I have approved its contents and I expect that to be distributed imminently. I hope to have responses to that to enable me to respond to the report that comes out from the committee. A number of the submissions that the committee received raised concerns about the national four qualifications. A number described it as worthless. I put that to the chief examiner when she gave evidence to the committee. She did not accept that analysis, but she conceded that there was a problem of credibility with the national four examination. I share both views that national four is a valuable qualification, but I also accept that there are problems in its perception. We are taking a number of steps to try to build that credibility. One of the issues that I think has been a factor has been the fact that national four is a valuable qualification. The factor has been the existence of what is called fallback whereby if a young person did not receive a satisfactory level in national five, they would automatically get the unit history to demonstrate performance. I think that that symbolically made that look like a qualification that was a bit of a compensation. I have removed that now to ensure that we are able to promote and explain the value of national four to parents and to young people and to external stakeholders as representing significant learning, which is of value to young people. That is one of the measures that we are taking forward to try to strengthen that. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance at the committee this morning. I want to suspend for five minutes, but I remind members that we will be coming back into public session. Thank you very much. We will now move to agenda item 4, Public Petitions, PE1694. It is in the name of Ralph Riddock on the subject of three instrumental music services and was detailed in paper four of the committee meeting papers. It outlines the history of the petition and the work undertaken by this committee on this matter, which has been substantive. As members will be aware, the committee has completed its inquiry into the instrumental music situation, published its report, considered the responses from the Scottish Government and COSLA and debated the report in the chamber. The paper also points out that the petitioner has launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal action to challenge the lawfulness of charging for instrumental music tuition in schools. Members will have seen that the papers ask the committee to consider closing its consideration of the petition and the basis that it intends to monitor the progress of the legal challenge on charging for instrumental music tuition and reserves the right to revisit this issue in its future work programme. Do members have any comments? Are we content to close that petition at this stage? Thank you very much. Gend item 5 is another Public Petitions, PE1692, in the name of Leslie Scott on behalf of Times Trust and Alison Proust on behalf of the Scotland Home Education Forum. The petition calls for an inquiry into the human rights impact of GIFIC policy and data processing. Paper 5 in the meeting papers outlines the history of the petition. This agenda item is intended to be an initial discussion on the petition. It suggests options for gathering information that could serve as a useful context for the committee's next consideration of the petition. As the paper sets out, the findings of the GIFIC practice panel will be relevant to the committee's more substantive consideration of the petition, which will take place once the findings are in the public domain. Do members have any comments of the petition, including the option set out by the clerks at this time? The petition makes some extremely valid points. I think that there are likely to be some interesting points to be developed from that petition following the updated guidance. I think that it's a fair point to investigate this further. One of the issues that was flagged up in the petition was that, while advice had been withdrawn, it still was informing practice and that was the concern. I suppose that that is the kind of issue that is going to be dealt with through the code of practice. It feels to me that it's obviously round the broader question of the name person and people who are concerned about the implications of that, but the idea that, while that debate is on-going, some of the ideas behind it have been implemented was what the concern of the petitioners were. At the centre of the Public Petitions Committee's point of view, it felt that to deal with it in the context of our consideration of the code of practice has made sense. There are two options in the Committee of Rights of Scottish Government seeking its perspective on how the framework for the functioning of independent bodies operates, where multiple remits are engaged on a particular issue. For example, the petitioner raised the case that covers human rights considerations, including rights of the child, the processes of local authorities, the process of NHS boards and the appropriate sharing of processing data. We can tend to write to the Government on that issue. The second option was the Committee could write to ICO seeking an update on its work following the introduction of GDPR, including any issuing of updated advice and other work with organisations to ensure the shift in data processing practices from those adopted under the Data Protection Act, including moving away from practices based on the 2013 ICO advice and the 2016 advice. We can tend to write to the Commissioner on that area.