 Felly, mae'r cyntaf i'r gweithio y ddweud o'r gweithio'r eu ddweud o'r lleidio'r gyffredinol ar gyfer y Gwyrd Cyflaedau Sifoledig i'r cyffredinol yn 2021. Felly, mae'r cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol am gyda'r nyfawr Ymddor, Rennie MSP, yn gweithio'r cyffredinol am gyfrifiadau. Rennie will yn gallu cyfrifiadau i'r cyffredinol ar gyfer y cyffredinol, ond mae'r cyffredinol yn gweithio'r gweithio ar gyfer y Gwyrd Cyffredinol, Before I invite Willie to declare any relevant interests, I would like to thank Beatrice for her work on both this committee and the Education and Skills Committee in the last parliamentary session. Although we are sorry to lose her, we are also very pleased to have Willie joining us. Can I take this opportunity to ask Willie Rennie if he has any relevant interests he wishes to declare? Thank you, convener, and thank you also for the warm welcome. I have no interest to declare. Thank you. A bit dodgy connection, but we heard you say that you have no interest to declare, so thank you for that. So moving on to the second item on our agenda today, can I ask whether members are content to take agenda items 7 and 8 in private? Are we all agreed? Thank you. The third item on the agenda is to hear evidence from the minister for children and young people and their officials on the provision of early learning and childcare, specified children's Scotland amendment 2 order 2021 draft. I would like to welcome the minister to the committee this morning. The minister is accompanied by Joanne Mackenzie, team leader targeted children and family wellbeing Scottish Government, and Claire Cullen, lawyer Scottish Education branch, Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to you all, and welcome to our committee. Ms Ochie, can I invite you to speak to the draft instrument? Thank you very much, convener, and this is my first opportunity to speak at the education committee. I welcome you and Mr Stewart to your roles and the new committee members. This amending order will increase the income thresholds for families with a two-year-old who is eligible for funded early learning and childcare, ELC, because they get a joint working tax credit and child tax credit or universal credit award. Without this amendment, the relevant order currently specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of child tax credit and working tax credits with an annual income that does not exceed £7,320, or the parent is in receipt of universal credit with a monthly income that does not exceed £610 per month. This amending order will increase the income threshold to £7,500 per year for households in receipt of both child tax credit and working tax credits. Universal credit income threshold will increase to £625 per month. We are making this change to reflect changes at a UK level. UK Government has increased the national living wage from £8.72 to £8.91 per hour and has reduced the age at which a person receives it from 25 years of age to 23 and over. Those changes mean that it is no longer possible for a parent of a two-year-old age 23 or over to meet the criteria for those on combined working tax credit and child tax credit or on universal credit. The purpose of this order is to protect eligibility for two-year-olds, who we would expect to be eligible for funded ELC as a result of their parents or carers being in receipt of those affected qualifying benefits. If we choose not to make any changes to the income thresholds, we estimate that around 1,000 eligible two-year-olds would no longer be eligible, despite there being no significant difference in the household circumstances of those families. However, it is important to be clear that no two-year-old who is currently receiving funded ELC will be affected by those changes. Once a child has met the eligibility criteria, they remain eligible despite any subsequent changes in circumstances. For any child who became eligible after the change to the national living wage in April 2021 and has applied for a place to start in August, which is the next start date for children with a birthday between 1 March and 31 August, we wrote to all local authorities in June to request that they use their discretionary powers to allow for the increase in the national living wage. As the purpose of the amendment is to maintain eligibility, we do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of two-year-olds who become newly eligible for the provision. We do not expect a significant impact on local authorities' ability to fund this provision within the current financial settlement. As such, there is no evidence that additional funding is required to support implementation of the amendment. The impact on uptake will, however, be closely monitored by both Scottish Government and COSLA through the appropriate mechanism, which is the ELC Finance Working Group. Appropriate arrangements will be needed if uptake is significantly above the expected level and local authority costs increase as a result. We will monitor future increases in the national living wage, and we expect that it will be necessary to operate thresholds annually in order to keep pace with the standard of living. We have agreed with COSLA that the current amendment and future amendments are necessary to maintain a similar profile of eligible children. I am happy to respond to any specific questions that the committee has, convener. I am going to call Willie Rennie. Willie Rennie wants to ask a question and make a comment. I thank the minister for explaining that. I have no problem in fact to support the proposed changes, but the minister will know that the uptake for the provision of two-year-olds is particularly low across the country, with only around about a third of those eligible at accessing the service. Can the minister take the opportunity to tell us what efforts have been made to increase the uptake? There is a little point in changing the criteria unless we can deal with a bigger problem, which is the general low uptake. Thank you, Mr Rennie, for your question. I think that that is a really important one-in-one with that we are very aware of. We are working across Scotland to ensure that all families know the benefits of the offer and are able to access it. That includes working with the UK Government to address data sharing issues so that councils in Scotland can target information at eligible families. We are working across agencies to improve access of information to families, to help them to make informed decisions about ELC provision. We are also working with councils and Who Cares Scotland to make the most of the extension to funded ELC to two-year-olds with a care-experienced parent. We are also exploring further ways of engaging with those professionals who work closely with families such as family nurse practitioners, health visitors and social care workers to ensure that they inform families of their eligibility and encourage them where appropriate and where those families wish to uptake their offer of ELC. You mentioned the issue of data sharing with the UK Government. How is that going? Are there any issues that we should be made aware of? Obviously, that could be a direct impediment to the nature of the delivery of this benefit. Of course, and we have been working closely with the UK Government on data sharing so that local authorities can access the data to target some of those families for information about that. I am happy to pass over to Joanna, who is on the call, who will be able to update you more fully on the work that has been done, if that would be all right with you, convener. I think that it is a critical issue, so, yes, a short response would be good. Hi, there has been on-going work. I think that the previous committee was aware that we were working with the UK Government on this and had been hoping to bring some regulations, draft regulations, which are UK ones, to the attention of the committee last year. That work has been impacted by the pandemic and other issues, but we are currently working with them on the draft consultation document, and we expect that to be out in the next few weeks. That is the draft regulations that will allow the legal gateway that will allow local authorities to receive information from DWP and HMRC on the specific families in the area that meet the eligibility criteria. There is also work on going at the same time for the mechanism, how we will do that. There are two parts of it, the legal gateway and then the mechanism, and that works on going as well, so they should happen at the same time. We are hoping for that at some point next year. Thank you. We will look forward to hearing updates on that, because that is a critical part of the process. One last question from me. Is there a reason why this has to be reviewed annually? Why is not this just an automatic thing that happens when the national living wage goes up, that there are automatic changes? Is there a reason for that? Help me to understand that. Yes, and this is a question that I asked myself. Why is this something that we have? I think that the simplest answer is that we do not know what the increases to the national living wage will be year on year. To ensure that we maintain the eligibility for the families who are currently eligible for this ELC offer, that is why we are doing this on a yearly basis. Okay, so that it cannot happen automatically whatever the rate increase is. Two colleagues want to come in. I will bring back in Willie Rennie and then Oliver Mundell. The earlier answer was very helpful, minister. Is part of the problem the structure of the provision of this service? You will find that the centres for that, and sometimes not in every single community, so people have to travel quite some distance in order to access the local nursery or early learning facility. When you are on low incomes, that might be particularly challenging. Has there been any discussions with COSLA and with councils about making sure that there are a greater number of centres so that they can access a centre more local to you? Convener, I missed part of the start of that question, so I hope that I am able to answer Mr Rennie fully. If not, if I have not answered his question, I am more than happy to write to the committee with an update on the work that we are doing with COSLA. Is Mr Rennie aware that there has been a huge expansion of the ELC estate right across the country in just about all local authorities? There has been additional building work done. Recently, we are keen to encourage and promote the ELC offer to eligible two-year-olds, and we will continue to do that through all avenues that we can. We work closely with COSLA on that and other issues relating to ELC, but if I have not answered his question fully there, I am more than happy to come back to the committee. Thank you, minister. Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. I had not intended to ask a question, but obviously just hearing the comments around data sharing, I am confused, because I know those who have been kicking about for a while and I understand the issues with them. Even those issues put to one side, the number of two-year-olds registering has fallen since this programme was introduced, so there are actually less two-year-olds benefiting now than there were when it started. I just wondered if the minister had an explanation for that. Is it correct, because I hear it from local ELC providers, that they are actively discouraged from going out to engage directly with families that they have to wait for the local authority and others to identify them? They cannot go out into their own communities and publicise this, is that correct? On Mr Mundell's second point, that is certainly not something that I recognise, local authorities and Scottish Government. I have worked very closely on that, and we are certainly keen that any child whose carers or parents are keen to take up this offer are aware of it, and I think that that is really important, and that they are able to make an informed choice about whether or not they access that ELC offer. Obviously, that is not going to be suitable or wanted by every family, but we need to ensure that people are aware of that, and we will continue to work hard to do that. If Mr Mundell has specific concerns in specific areas, I would be very keen for him to write to me so that we can look to try and address that with their coslet and local authority colleagues. We are keen to ensure that any child who is eligible for this ELC offer is able to take that up, if appropriate, and we will continue to work hard to promote that through, as I said in my previous answer to Mr Rennie, through all channels and all avenues that we can do. Thank you to colleagues who have contributed thus far. If anyone else wishes to say anything, this is the moment to say so. If not, I will proceed. I thank the minister and our officials for their evidence this morning. Let's move straight on to our next agenda item. Our fourth item on the agenda is to invite the minister to move motion S6M-00700 that the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the provision of early learning in childcare, specified children's Scotland amendment 2 order 2021 draft be approved. I would like to invite the minister to speak to and move the motion. Formally moved, convener. Do members have any comments? Would the minister like to wind up? I don't think, convener. I have anything further to add to this other than to thank the committee for its questions this morning. The question is that motion S6M-00700, in the name of where hockey be approved, are we all agreed? It looks as if we are all agreed. I would now like to announce a two-minute suspension to allow the minister and her officials whom we thank again to leave. Our fifth agenda item today is to consider another piece of subordinate legislation, the registration of independent schools Scotland amendment regulations 2021. That instrument is being considered under the negative procedure. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Do we agree? We are agreed, I think. Moving on to our next agenda item this morning, the committee will take evidence from the OECD in relation to their recent reports on Scottish education. I am delighted to welcome to the committee Dr Beatrice Pawn, senior analyst education policy and Roman Vna, policy analyst from the organisation for economic cooperation and development OECD. We are hoping to take about an hour and a half of your time, Dr Pawn. I am just trying to see if I can see where—yes, look across my screen to make sure that I can see Roman Vna. You are both very welcome. I will start the questioning and then I will bring in my colleagues as we go. Those questions are directed to both or either of you from me. What I would like to know is how the pandemic restricted your ability to do this report, especially when it came to evidence gathering. What would you have normally done that you could not do because of the restrictions that were placed on you? I think that that is an interesting scene-setter for the committee. Who would like to go first? We have lost you, you have gone. It is a pleasure for us to be with you today after so much work that we have been engaged with in Scotland, and we appreciate this opportunity. I am going to give a slight introduction to the project and the background before we start having questions, because we think that it is important to set the scene. If you do not mind, I will take that opportunity now. What I wanted to cover is a little bit of the background, the methodology, the focus and the findings. It is important for us that you understand how we have been working with Scotland. We have a project at the OECD that focuses on implementing education policies, because we have learned throughout the years that many countries fail to implement successfully their reforms because they do not focus well enough or deep enough into what implementation is, and so they design very beautiful policies, but the process of implementing them is not well-focused. It is important to develop a comparative analysis on that, and to support countries on the process. About three years ago, we started a project, and we have now worked with eight different OECD education systems, including Austria, Estonia, Ireland in their senior cycle review, Mexico, Norway, Scotland and Wales in their curriculum review as well and Iceland in their education strategy. The lessons that we use are very comparative. Our approach is comparative and is based on all the knowledge that we have at the OECD in relation to a wide range of policies and education systems, and I think that that is important to contextualise. In terms of the methodology that we use, we have a tried and tested methodology, so it is not only three years when we started the project, but we have been doing country reviews for more than two decades. I have personally been at the OECD for more than two decades now and have been doing reviews and working with countries in a way that is tried and tested and what we do. It draws extensively on qualitative analysis and quantitative information and comparative analysis that we tailor to the countries. The way that we work is that the country prepares background information for us. We do our own preliminary analysis of the data, of the research, of the literature, of anything that Scotland or the country may have published or developed that we gather ourselves, and then we visit the country. We did two virtual visits to Scotland by video, so we had video interviews that extended a lot longer than we would normally do regularly. Normally, we would travel to the country and meet all the different stakeholders that we advise the Government that we want to meet. We have a list of the key education stakeholders that we consider are important and we exchange in developing this list. What we do is balance our timing needs with the possibility to meet everybody in a specific moment. I look at this list with the Government and then we meet them individually as a team. We created a specific team that was Romana, myself, Ann Looney and Jan Van Den Acker, who is a world-renowned curriculum expert. Ann is an excellent academic and she is now engaged with you in the continuation of the recommendations. We did two visits. The first visit was focused on policy. We met all the different stakeholders that we considered together as important to meet. Those we were not able to meet, we actually furthered and continued and developed more interviews after the week that we spent in September virtually in Scotland. The second meeting week was with schools. We did actually visit schools. Normally, we visit schools and we can only visit three, four, but this time because it was virtual, we were actually able to visit more and meet more students because we gathered perspectives from different students across Scotland. We focused on meeting with principals, teachers, students and parents of different regions in Scotland. In addition, with our preliminary findings, we had webinars where we gathered the perspectives of stakeholders on our preliminary recommendations. In addition, we had the Scottish Practitioners Forum, which we would meet every six weeks to review progress, to share with them the project and how things were evolving, to check with them as well the preliminary findings. We have been greatly engaged, although virtually, with you, to develop the final analysis and the recommendations that you have seen and that there has been a summary provided to you. The process has taken a while. In terms of the pandemic, there were other issues because we were negotiating with the Government to do the review before the pandemic hit. We had considered doing the review visits in June and the pandemic hit. It was no time to visit a school in June because nobody was in school and teachers were really focused on something else and not on an OECD review. We considered that it was not the appropriate time to visit a school or to engage in an analysis at a time when we would have just been in the middle of another very anguishing situation for many schools and many policy makers to see how to respond. We decided to have the visit between September and December because we knew that we had to deliver a report or something in a specific time, and it was important for Scotland. We delayed and thought that we would do it in person if it was possible. Then, again, in September, we did the analysis online. That was the methodology. Initially, the focus was only on the senior phase, but there was a parliamentary request that we would focus on the whole system. The main question that we were asked to focus on is CFE implemented in such a way to contribute positively to the education of all young people in Scotland? The focus that was requested from us was on implementation and learning, attention to broad BGE and to senior phase, a focus on young people and learning at the centre, and then the review was collaborative and inclusive with stakeholders as much as possible. We started our review. We looked at the PISA data, which was of great concern across Scotland, and one of the reasons why the review was requested and the concern that PISA data was declining. We saw that there was a decline, but it was also the case with many other OECD countries. We also saw that Scotland is among the leading countries in global competency proficiency, which measures the new types of schools that CFE is delivering. We also saw that in equity, Scotland is above average across OECD countries in terms of equity. We also saw something that is a concern that is the amount of working time that teachers spend in front of a class, which is very high in relation to other OECD countries among the highest. Then we also reviewed your own evidence on education outcomes, selected evidence. It was difficult to see what CFE delivers, because there are so many different data points. You use PISA, but PISA is at one point in time for 15-year-olds. For us, the analysis was from 3 to 18, so PISA cannot give you the whole response on whether CFE is working well or not, especially with senior phase. We saw that you have data on 95 per cent positive destinations. More than 90 per cent of 16 to 19-year-olds participate in education employment or training. There has been a narrowing of the equity gap between the most and the least deprived areas. We also saw that in S3, 88 per cent expected literacy and 90 per cent expected literacy levels were covered. We also saw that there was improved attainment in the SCQF 46, with attainment gaps decreased between 2009, 2010 and 2018 and 2019. We saw some of your own data that showed some kind of progress in education. This is the background. Then we looked at CFE. CFE has been in the making for many years. It started in 2004. We actually followed it at the OECD for a while. Your initiated CFE statements were published and implementations started from 2010. It is now 2021. It is more than 10 years since CFE was implemented or has been slowly being implemented. In many education systems, they review curriculum every 10 years. CFE does not know that there has been a lot of experience, so it was a good time to review. The four main building blocks of CFE are the four fundamental capacities, children rights, eight curriculum areas and three interdisciplinary areas, assessment as an integral part and school-based curriculum design. You also have a number of priorities to close the poverty-related gap, prepare children for the future, raise standards and provide competency-based education. We saw CFE as a pioneer among education systems internationally. Since you started CFE, many other systems have been implementing curriculum that focus on knowledge, skills and competency. Many education systems internationally are watching and considering you a high-performing education system, which is important for us. We also wanted to understand CFE. We found that there were a number of underlying tensions with CFE that were very important, which was the lack of balance between flexibility at the school-level system coherence, the one between depth and breadth, the focus on knowledge, skills and or competencies or all of them together and the alignment between student assessment and system evaluation. With all those tensions, we analysed and I'll be finishing how we developed a set of recommendations where we suggest that what's important is, first of all, to provide for all Scottish students a coherent learning experience between 3 and 18, which we don't see is the case now because there is a gap when they reach senior face and move from really the CFE experience into testing and preparing for the end of the school testing, so we think it's important. There we said you need to reassess CFE's aspirational vision against emerging trends in education and especially find a focus, a better focus on knowledge as well. The second to find a balance between depth and breadth to adapt the senior face to the vision of CFE and continue building curricular capacity. The second area that we thought was quite important was the collaboration and clarity in the roles of responsibilities for different stakeholders and then to consolidate the institutional policy process for effective change. I'll stop here because I see you wanting to ask me a question. You've given us a tour de force of the report, which I appreciate, but can I ask you my question again? The pandemic restricted your ability to come here. It would have restricted your ways of doing business normally, I am assuming. Is that correct? You would normally have come, you would normally have been on the ground here. It's been a different experience, yes? Yes, of course. We've been doing this with all education systems, not only Scotland, and trying to find the best ways possible to gather evidence without doing the best thing that would be being in Scotland. It would have been better to have been here on the ground. Are you satisfied with the diversity of the voices that you heard in the course of building the report? One of the aspects of the constructive feedback that's come after the publication of the report is that most of the people and organisations that you consulted with were either on Scottish Government committees or had been on Scottish Government committees or had developed or managed the so-called insider bodies. That's one of the criticisms of the report. How do you respond to that? We have met all the different education stakeholders that have been involved with CFE and that have lived CFE and experienced CFE as students, as parents, as teachers and as policy makers. Of course, we need to meet policy makers who did shape the policy, but we've also met academics who have analysed and critiqued the policy, a number of them, with many observers and different representatives from different bodies and institutions across Scotland. Of course, CFE is a policy that covers the whole education system. We've met a representative set of stakeholders across Scotland that matches the type of stakeholders that we would meet in any other education system. That's a fair response. Can I ask you about changes that were made to the report between the draft and the final report? Were there changes made to the draft of the request of the Scottish Government or any of the educational agencies? The process for us is always the same with countries. It's quite an intricate process to develop these reports. We gather the data, then we go back and meet with all the team and review how we see, review the evidence and then draft the report and have one preliminary version. The preliminary version goes to a number of people internally at the OECD and also externally in the country, because we believe that it's important to get the facts right. We're observers, we're not Scottish, and the education system and the assessment system in Scotland is very confusing. It's important to... That's an interesting comment that you've just made. It's very confusing. It's complex, not confusing complex. We always do this with all countries. We send a draft, a preliminary draft for comments and review, to check that all the facts are right, that we have it well done. Normally, the process is that we have a national coordinator and we exchange just with that person and that person is in charge of gathering all the different feedback within the country and giving it back to us. If the OECD was to open their mailbox to everybody in the country, it would be unmanagable for us. It's fair to say that there were changes between the draft and the final report that we have in front of us. Yes, of course it is fair to say. We have a preliminary report and we got comments from the staff at the OECD from Education 2030, who have a good understanding of curriculum internationally from you, from other observers. We, as a team, review the report and prepare a final draft. That's how any academic would work. A first draft is never a final draft. Thank you for that. This is a process related to questions. We may come back to more of those, but I'm going to bring in Ross Greer at this point. I hope that we might be able to bring in Roman as well. I'm conscious of the fact that we've not heard from her yet. Ross Greer. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Much of the commentary here in Scotland in the last few days around the report has been in regards to the references made in the report itself, but also at the launch back in June to Scottish national standardised assessments, the ASL assessments. Rather than putting words into your mouths, could I ask you to expand on what was said in the report about SNSAs? Specifically, is their purpose clear, and do you believe that the standardised assessments are meeting that stated purpose at present? I will let Roman take that question and respond to you. Thank you very much, Beatrice, and thank you, Ms Greer, for your question. May I just clarify that you are talking about the SNSA, correct? What the report is bringing SNSA for is when we are considering the data available to monitor progress of students with curriculum for excellence. It is linked to what we were saying earlier, which was a dual observation on our part, that there is both a lot of data generated, but maybe not the relevant or appropriate data for the purpose of monitoring curriculum for excellence effect on student learning. I will be short on that, but the SNSA is brought in as an example, aside with the curriculum for excellence levels. I think that the acronym for that one is ASOL, and we are considering the relevance of each of those two data collection mechanisms compared with what we would want to see for curriculum for excellence, for a monitoring system for curriculum for excellence. The argument that is made is not that SNSA, in particular, is to scrap or is useless. It is just that it is maybe not the most appropriate mechanism to measure curriculum for excellence impact on student learning. Did that answer your question, MSP? Yes, thank you. If I could go a little further into that. The SNSAs have a dual purpose. They are supposed to collect formative and summative data. Their stated purpose is to help individual teachers with supporting their pupils, but also to provide that larger summative data about how the system as a whole is working. The point that you just made is that they are not necessarily the best way to collect that data. Is that the summative data that you are talking about? SNSAs are not necessarily the best way to collect system-level data? It is not necessarily the best system-level data for curriculum for excellence's impact on student learning. I emphasised the last part of my sentence in that what we were suggesting that CFE would need in terms of data collection would be some sort of study that would have a focus really on student experiences of curriculum and assessment, their experience and their suggestions about the qualifications linked to those assessments, something that would look at the diversity of what curriculum for excellence is trying to achieve rather than what is currently measured via the SNSA, because the fact that it has this dual purpose makes it maybe a little less relevant for CFE as a policy. That's all right. The information centre here at the Scottish Parliament, which is the neutral research resource available to all of us, so it's not aligned with any one individual party, has just published a little bit more analysis on that. They've highlighted the potential difference between the Scottish Government accepting the headline recommendations of your report and responding to the wider commentary contained within it. That is the example used, because there is not a headline recommendation specifically on SNSAs, but there is this wider commentary, as you've just explained, about whether or not they are the most useful way to collect the data that is required. Would you expect the Scottish Government to respond directly to the points made around SNSAs? Thank you, Mr Greer, for this question. We at the OECD are an independent organisation and what we do is deliver a set of recommendations for the countries to take on board and consider what Scotland will do with our recommendations then is up to your political process and to your discussions. We try to provide the most fair, independent and objective recommendations and also to provide a development of why and what options could be adopted and how those could be and provide examples of other countries that do similar types of policies. The next step for Scotland is to consider how you want to move on board with the recommendations. For us, the recommendations are a summary to guide the action, but it is important to take all of those on board coherently as part of the whole CFE experience for students and for teachers. Roman was explaining for us that the assessment system is not fully providing information about how CFE is succeeding. It is more focused on the knowledge aspect and there are three other capacities that do not appear in the data. When you try to understand how CFE is progressing, the more limited focus is on the knowledge side but not the other side. We think that it is important to consider that, but it is up to Scotland to see how you want to take on board our recommendations. We cannot tell Scotland what it should be doing. Thank you both. That is all for me for now. I think that I gather from your answers, Beatrice, that the text underneath the subheadings is part of the recommendation in the report. Is my understanding from your answer unless I am misunderstanding? I want to bring Fergus Ewing in now. He has a follow-up question, and then we will come to Willie Rennie. Thank you, convener, and good morning to both witnesses. Thank you for coming along this morning. I just wanted to pursue the issue that Mr Greer has raised, and you have both already covered namely data and the absence of sufficient data to enable us to determine the outcome of the success of three of the four competencies under CFE. I did notice and I was going to quote from your report, but I think that you have already confirmed that some data is missing, some data is absent, and I fully accept that it is for Scotland to respond to that. Can you give us a little bit more help in identifying what type of data we should be getting from whom and how other countries are dealing with this reportage, if you like, on data to assess how their children are responding in respect of key competencies? Thank you, Mr Ewing. It is a very large question to which many countries are grappling with, because the three capacities outside of successful learners are more difficult to assess, and many countries are wondering how to do this. In addition to our report, we developed a working paper on student assessment in upper secondary education, which is senior face in Scotland, in a comparative perspective, because the Government suggested that this is an area that they also wanted us to focus on, but it was not for recommendations, but rather just to provide some options for the future. Professor Gordon Stobart developed a working paper on the current assessment system and how it could be better aligned to CFE. He provided some options to move beyond what he called the legacy system of student assessment in Scotland. Those options vary, but they focus on developing a more resilient assessment system that has been hit by the pandemic and there have been a number of issues. There are other education systems internationally who have been more resilient because they have a mixed economy of student assessment approaches. How do you align better student assessment with curriculum and pedagogy? You have to broaden how you assess. Some may be school-based assessments by teachers, others by using IT means to measure other types of skills that are not necessarily hardcore knowledge. He develops a number of examples of different countries and how they are doing this and brings in Norway, New Zealand, Australia and others who are introducing or have tested and used successfully different approaches that go beyond the pen and pencil test and that you yourselves have been actually introducing through the SQM more. You already have some experience on this and this is where many countries are moving towards. When we virtually travelled across Scotland and we met some parents and we asked them, how do you see the impact of CFE on your children? Many said that they speak much better, they are much more open about their views and they can very cogently discuss and introduce many topics in our dinner table and I see a change. It is such anecdotal evidence and that is not enough to understand CFE. It is important to try to find right ways of measuring all the additional skills that CFE is focused on and that many education systems internationally are increasingly focused on. I was very interested in your reference to the comments that some parents have made. I will be at anecdotal evidence because it absolutely accords with my own impression of listening to parents that their children are well able to express themselves with confidence, with greater confidence than perhaps was the case when I was at school although that was a very long time ago. That is what we heard quite often. Many are saying that we were hearing critique about anecdotal evidence that there is a certain set of skills that CFE is developing and that they are perceived anecdotally by those who are observing the system and participating in it and even children as well. One other issue that I wanted to highlight as well is that we met with a number of students and even we met a student who had dropped out, who had lack of confidence, who was a very disadvantaged student and she was wonderful telling us about how she had been bullied and how she got out of it. A number of personal experiences of different students were very relevant to us to understand how CFE can help students. We thought that there was not enough engagement of students to understand their views in Scotland. That is an interesting comment to lead us to Willie Rennie. There does seem to be quite a significant debate that we need to have about the overall measurement, not just of the system to help politicians in the national debate but also in the classroom as well. I think that your report is quite clear in the discussion that you think using the SNSA, the assessment process for broad general education, for national stake. Can I just be clear? It is following on from what Ross Greer was asking. SNS is not used for national monitoring purposes and there needs to be a different process. Of course, you have also talked about the separation of the—sorry, something happened here. We still hear you. You are still here, Willie Rennie, but my screen has gone funny. I understand the point about the SNSA's narrowly focusing on just one of the capacities and that needs to change. However, there are two separate issues here. We need to have that national monitoring separate from the assessment process. Am I understanding it correctly and you need to send a very clear message to us that SNSAs are not suitable for national monitoring purposes? I would like to ask Raman, if she wants to take the question. I did get a little bit of white noise, so I will just repeat what I understood from your question. Your question is whether we can say that the SNSA is not fit for monitoring purposes, system monitoring purposes. Is that correct? Yes, that is right. Thank you, sir. As I was saying, our recommendations and our suggestions are only based on curriculum for excellence. The report does not pronounce itself on the broader part of the education system that we did not assess SNSA for. I can only speak to how SNSA connects to curriculum for excellence and its attempts. It is stated clearly in the report that the SNSA is not considered by our team as the most appropriate system monitoring mechanism, as far as CFE is concerned. However, I will highlight the fact that SNSA is cited alongside at least one other monitoring tool that was developed at the curriculum for excellence levels. It is cited as one example and only with regard to CFE. You want to come back in? Yes, I think that that is clear. What you have just said is not included in your main recommendations. My fear is that the Government will not address that substantially. I understand the purpose of the SNSA to assist the teacher in the classroom process, but, to be clear, it is not really suitable, as it is currently used on a national monitoring basis. That is what I want to be absolutely clear about. I refer to the points that I included in the main recommendations, the recommendation number 3, which is about the alignment between the curriculum qualifications and system evaluation part. The SNSA, as an example, and only with regard to CFE, is cited as part of the recommendation. Roman, just to go back to the point that I made earlier, the text underneath the subheadings in the report is all part of the recommendations. I said earlier that I concluded from your previous answer that it was. You seem to have suggested that again. Am I correct in saying that? Go ahead, Roman. I was going to say that, as Beatrice was saying earlier, the text beneath the recommendations are part of the recommendations. The OECD is not expecting a Government to take every single point-by-point and provide a response for inaction immediately, but rather to use the whole of the text and the guiding points that we provide in terms of recommendations, so that, because those recommendations cannot be understood or interpreted outside of the context that we provide with the broader text. That is exceptionally clear. I am going to go to Michael Marra. He wanted to come in on another topic. Could I clarify very quickly? Beatrice, we will come back to you in a moment. Beatrice, do you want to clarify something? We have a generic overall recommendation number three, and then underneath we have three point one, three point two, three point three. Recommendations suggest, align curriculum qualifications and system evaluation to deliver on the commitment of building the curriculum five, which is a document that you yourself prepared a while ago. Underneath is the text to develop this recommendation and to consider how to do it, so it helps to develop and consider. You are confirming what Roman has just said, which is much appreciated. I am going to go now to Michael Marra. Thank you, convener. I found all of that commentary on the assessments very useful indeed. I want to take Dr Pond back to comments that she made earlier regarding the work that they have done internationally and the development of other systems. It is great to hear other countries are observing Scotland, but I want to try to learn a little bit about from those other countries as well. Dr Pond mentioned that other countries have implemented new curriculums, which share the same kind of ethos as curriculum for excellence. You could make some comment on what implementation issues those countries have faced that may be similar to those that we have had here in Scotland, but are there any issues that are distinct to us here in Scotland? Thank you very much. That is a very interesting question for us. Since you started CFE, there have been a number of countries. Norway, Finland, Estonia, New Zealand, Japan and Wales, for example, have all introduced curriculum reforms that go into what we consider this term of 21st century skills, competencies and knowledge. Many are adding transversal skills of different values and more recently Iceland as well, so they are introducing these values that you have in your four purposes. We have watched many countries introduce this. We have a broader OECD project covering this with a framework that is similar to yours. We have only watched a few who have been implementing it. One of the issues is teacher preparation and teacher development of curriculum. In your own case, where teachers have to create shape their own curriculum at the local level, that requires a specific type of skills that maybe teachers may not be fully prepared for in their own initial teacher training programmes or have time in schools to do that. We find that that is a big issue. There are high expectations for teachers, but it is important to build curricular capacity at various levels of the system. That happens internationally. We had an example of Mexico who introduced a curriculum skills-based curriculum, and they delivered an online training for one day to many teachers to start the course. I think that you have been investing more in developing capacity. Many systems are developing different approaches to provide capacity for teachers. The second big issue is that that is the first. If you define a very good curriculum, it is still very difficult to implement it at the school level by the teachers and by the principals. The second one is about student assessment. We have been discussing it in a number of questions that you have posed to us and how to align what we call this 21st century skill curriculum with 19th century assessment systems. Many countries are upgrading or changing or seeing how to review their assessment systems. Covid has provided an opportunity to do so because they had to be cancelled and we had to find different ways of delivering information on how students are progressing. We have seen brands or Norway or other systems giving greater weight of teacher-based assessments or school-based assessments or others. The third is finding the right system monitoring mechanisms that allow to understand how progress with curriculum is moving forward. A last one that we also cover in your report is the institutional aspect of how should it be reviewed, how often it should be reviewed and who should be reviewing it. We found that in Scotland it was important to have a professional process for reviewing CFE rather than ad hoc systems. We recommended that there should be an institution such as that in Ireland that could review the curriculum in a set cycle and take on board issues that may arise throughout the years in a process that is professional and informal. Those are more or less an overview of some of the challenges in implementation of curriculum. I think that there may be others, but I will stop here. Michael, do you want to come back in? Yes, thank you, convener. It is a very broad question. I understand that, Dr Pond. I suppose probably might require a broader analysis on some of those issues. You mentioned Mexico in terms of the lack of training for teachers to do the kind of curriculum development. I think that some of that would be familiar to teachers in Scotland at the start of curriculum for excellence in terms of the great challenges in the implementation phase. Are there places that have done that better and are there lessons that we can learn? You have given us one instance where things have not gone well in Mexico in terms of a lack of that capacity. Are you saying that we need to really lift that and what kind of capacity? You make reference as opposed to one of your core issues regarding the in-school development time, but are there instances? Where are the models that we should be reflecting on and learning from? One of them is your neighbour, Wales. We have been working with Wales, and Wales has been following you, in a way, in developing a new curriculum. It will start implementing it from 2023, and it is aiming to develop a professional learning system for teachers, very much engaging them at the local level and providing the right training and the right networks for them. It has a set of consortia that are school improvement partners. In a way, your regional collaboratives are a bit more formalised, and that is the role that they provide, and I think that is at the core. We are also working with Norway. Norway introduced a decentralised funding scheme to develop a collaborative approach for training and capacity building at the local and school level. It is kind of a complex system, but it is a savvy system in which they are giving money for schools to make their demands met by universities, but only if universities tailor their training, because sometimes universities have their package ready-made training that does not fully help teachers. They are changing the way things are in setting up a collaborative approach to developing the right responses for teachers' needs. That is a good approach that we have been working with. It is slow, it takes time and it is a process. You yourself have the partnerships between universities and schools on professional inquiry. I think that the types of regional and local approaches to supporting schools and their staff to work together to solve their issues and develop themselves and their own capacity we find are working well internationally. Thank you, Michael. I am going to turn now to Bob Doris. Thank you very much, convener. It has been a fascinating evidence session so far. I want to ask a few questions about the mismatch between the senior phase of school and curriculum for excellence. One of the things that was raised was that there was a too narrow range of learning activities in the senior phase. We came to know what might be improved and how we would broaden that out. There was much to talk about a diversity of pathways being required. There was also a lack of time to go into detail in some subjects. I am just wondering about the range of learning activities in terms of going into detail in some subjects and suggestions to be about OECD if I have got it correctly. There should be a limited amount of core subjects in the senior phase and then some subjects where students begin to do much more specialist detail. I am just wondering whether that might have an unintended consequence to narrow the options of young people in the senior phase. I would be interested to know your comments on that. Thank you very much, Mr Doris. It is quite a large question that you are posing. We analysed senior phase. We saw that there was a gap between the aspirations of CFE that are met in VGE. When you jump to senior phase, some have termed it the two-term dash of exams for students to get their qualifications and leave the system. There are all the student assessments, and the structures are very set to pass the exams, but not to have a broad experience as CFE considers it. We think that that is hindering the curriculum experience of many young people. The students that we met told us that we arrive into senior phase having learned in a new way and having learned in a much more broader experience type of approach, and now we have to go back to learning for the test. That is something that they were saying that changes the way they perceive education. Senior phase has an issue between breadth and depth that is unsolved and attention. We think that a possibility would be to clarify the structure of senior phase without restricting its diversity. There is quite an objective that we heard of being diverse and providing as many opportunities for young children as possible. That was an issue that many highlighted to us, but that may be too broad and not deep enough. We thought that a possibility would be to define a number of typical pathways or profiles for senior phase without a limited number of compulsory courses or specialisation courses and providing room for additional or optional units, so that there would be some guidance from the system as to what would be the expectations. We also welcome the provision of courses by colleges. Students can take courses in colleges and colleges also provide courses in schools and it was a very interesting model that we valued greatly in terms of being able to provide a range of opportunities for students to widen their learning experience as they are teenagers. That is very helpful. I absolutely recognise the two-term dash. I do not think that the season has been prescriptive on how that gets fixed. Some schools do that at fives or hires over two years. Currently, they pace out curriculum and syllabus at a much more appropriate scale and pace for students. I get that. The additional provision for further education dropping down into schools is already happening and expanding those pathways and broadening that out. I absolutely get that. As my follow-up question would be in relation to assessments. I see in the report much more use of portfolio work, much more use of continuous assessment, much more use in teacher judgment and, of course, with appropriate moderation. I also see that some of that moderation for continuous assessment would be external to the school to build in much more chunky checks and balances in the systems. I am not there to welcome that, but my question around that would be in years gone by, and I am thinking of the poverty-related attainment gap here, is when you give more content for young people to produce, young people that have better support at home for preparing for portfolio work at home can quite often be young people from more high-income backgrounds and more time and space at home and tutors and that kind of thing. I support all of that, but we have to be careful that when we broaden out that continuous assessment that what we do not do is put an endowed advantage again, as we have with external assessment, for a cohort of young people who may be at a better place to take those benefits of continuous assessment because of tutors and parental support and all those additional advantages that they have. Yes, I think that the equity dimension is very important in CFE and in Scotland. You already perform, according to PISA, a higher equity than other education systems than the average. Some of your data also shows that you have managed to reduce slightly some of the gaps between low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. We were concerned that CFE, when you devolve so much to schools to develop the curriculum and to choose the pathways and to see which courses to be offered, the more advantage-privileged schools will have a broader array of offers of supply of courses and that can actually lead to higher inequality. So it is important for Scotland to consider the issue of inequality and how CFE really can be provided for all schools and for all children to benefit from. So when you assess students externally, which system is fairer? There has been a discussion on what is fairer. Do our external student assessments people think that they are fairer because they are the same for everybody but that has not been demonstrated to be true and we have seen that in the US with the SATs, which have been dropped in many places because they have been considered to be unfair because students, as you say, do not have the same capacity to prepare at home. It is important to have the right support mechanisms for schools to be able to support their students and if they have more disadvantaged schools to have more support if possible and the right conditions for them to thrive. Now, sometimes teachers are in a better position to support their students and continuous assessment by teachers and by their schools can actually be fairer than an exam where there is no support or no individual knowledge of the students. So what we consider important to have a balance of that is not necessarily to drop one or the other but to make sure that schools have provision and that students have the right support mechanisms for them and that those assessments are well balanced so that you can have a good understanding of the performance of students. I want to return to the original line of question that you started. I have very serious concerns that this report is flawed and that it has not engaged properly with non-ministry academics. I have written twice to the OECD and I have not even got a reply. When I asked the Scottish Government after a freedom of information request, which non-ministry academics were suggested to the OECD, they told me that a planned phone call to discuss additional participants did not take place. I would be interested to know how non-ministry academics were suggested and where the view that CFE was universally embraced in Scotland had come from. Thank you for your comment and your question. I do not know if you were there when I introduced the methodology. Yes, I was, but I was not satisfied because my understanding was that the OECD had written a paper and sent it through to Scottish Government officials that discussed who would participate in the review. One of the questions in that paper was about which additional non-ministry academics should be approached. The Scottish Government and the OECD have been unable to tell me who was discussed and why they chose particular individuals. It confuses me because there are a number of voices in Scottish education who have more fundamental concerns about the curriculum for excellence and the principles behind it. As I said at the beginning, we have a set methodology and we say that in all countries we meet a group of academics. One of the issues that we have is time constraints. We cannot visit all the academics in the country and our time is limited and the report has to be out. We ask for a select set of academics who can be either critical or a supporter. We have approached RSC, for example, the Royal Scottish, Care Bloomer and others, and met a number of them. However, if we did not meet them, we actually read their papers, all their criticism and support. Whether we have met them or not, we have covered much of the territory of the critical aspects of CFE, written by many Scottish academics. To tell you the truth, I cannot remember the specific exchange about the academics. We provide a list, a guidance of who we want to meet, and then we exchange and then define a final set of five to ten academics that we want to meet. It was online that it was a bit more challenging to have a large group of academics. Normally, for example, I have been in Sweden in a room with 12 academics and they are always fascinating sessions as well. Here, we met a number of them either as a group or also met them individually later when we could. With these requests for information, the OECD, we have a set process that works for all countries. It is sound, independent and objective. We stand by that. Apparently, Lindsay Patterson was among our short lists, but it was not possible to fit him. We read his publication as well. The other issue is that as I said, we ask our national coordinator to co-ordinate for us and to send us all the information, so that we do not open ourselves up to receiving so much information that we can be overloaded. We covered a good set of academic perspectives, whether we met them or we read the materials initially or during the review. That is how we see the situation. Oliver Mundell? Quite frankly, I find it shocking that the OECD did not have time to speak to Professor Patterson. He is widely regarded in Scotland by Scottish teachers, by parents and by many across academia. I know the idea that as one of the leading critics of the current curriculum, his voice would not be included and that his papers would only be read. I think that it confirms many of the concerns that I have. I feel that the curriculum skirts over some of the issues around knowledge. It pushes the point, but it does not question whether the capacities at the heart of CFE are what causes the problem. As a result, the report is less than it would have been, but I do not really need an answer to that. I am happy to let other members come in. We approached RSE and we met Kerr Bloomer. We got the perspective of the RSE. I think that James Dornan, did you want to come in on this? I was expecting, convener, that Kerr Bloomer was not happy with the process, and he said that it is very evident that there has been stage managed by the Government, so I do not think that it is right to reference him as a defence for not having taken the time to speak to Professor Patterson. I think that James Dornan, did you want to come in on this particular line? Thank you, convener. I found the last intervention highly embarrassing for the committee. The OECD is an internationally respected organisation. Oliver seems to have this conspiracy theory that the Scottish Government has got power over all sorts of international bodies and that, if it does not do exactly as it wants, there is some conspiracy going on to make sure that the work of the Government is unacceptable for the OECD becoming here in good faith, taking questions and then getting that type of abuse from a member who is trying to use that point. James Dornan, I am not sure that we could say what occurred or was abused, but your point is made. Would you like to make a further point to the OECD? To be fair, the evidence that I have heard so far has been pretty good. There are clear issues about the final stages, but I was wondering about the fact that we are talking about the apprenticeship being part of the end of the process. I wonder how the OECD, I know that they did not write the report on that, but I wonder the upper secondary assessment, I wonder how the work of the integrating the foundation apprentices, how they see that desk being built on and how the existing mindsets might be shifted to make sure that that works easier. Thank you very much, Mr Dornan. We thank you for your comments. Regarding apprenticeships, we did not cover the apprenticeships specifically. We welcome the openness of CFE and senior phase to develop other qualifications focused more on expanding the pathways and the capacities for students to develop professional training and vocational education and training. Apprenticeships are one way. There is another report by the OECD on apprenticeships by a different department. I will be happy to send that along to the committee if you want to read further on it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am turning now to Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you. Sorry, I could not get myself off mute there. Someone else appears to have done it for me. I was really quite interested in the alignment of business links and links to universities and colleges in working collaboratively with them. Could you expand on that, please? Can you repeat the question, please? Sorry, I am really interested in the links into colleges and universities and what they are actually looking for. I was wondering if you could expand on that, thanks. What universities are you looking for from students coming in from CFE? In terms of the skills and the knowledge and skills that CFE is available for universities, according to universities? I suppose that we need to do between schools and universities to support what colleges and universities are looking for from our young people, the skills and stuff that they want to see. Thank you very much, Ms Callaghan. We need a number of university rectors to hear their views on the types of skills that students should have. More broadly, at the OECD, we are considering that students need knowledge skills values that are important to develop as to participate and contribute effectively in their societies and in shaping their own future. The skills developed in CFE we see are quite important in that sense. They are also looking to see in this way of assessing how students are ready for them, it is important. Universities internationally are also changing the way they assess or gather evidence to understand the skills that the students have. There are also efforts to expand how universities get involved in shaping the curriculum. We think that it is important that they should be consulted in the process and contribute to shaping the curriculum for the future. I cannot go more in detail here because I think that we did not cover this very much in depth in our report, but there is a whole team at the OECD also working in tertiary education that I can also request information from and send it forward to you. Would you like to come back in, Stephanie? No, that is fine, thank you. Okay, that is good. I am going to turn now to my deputy convener, Pocahp Stewart. Hi there, thank you very much. I have listened with great interest, just to declare an interest to you. I have been a teacher for 30 years, so a lot of what you have been saying actually resonates quite a lot. I first started teaching when we had the 5 to 14 curriculum, so I was at the beginning of the implementation of the curriculum for excellence, so it has been interesting for me to track that journey of implementation and now review at this time. It is great to hear that other countries are following our pioneering curriculum for excellence. As a previous teacher, I agree that it provides avenues for children to express, for instance, their talking and listening skills. You referred to that when you were feeding back that children are much more articulate, they are able to debate and put their views across. Active citizens and responsible learners, the four capacities, I am very familiar with those. I think that it is perfectly reasonable that, after this amount of time, it would now require refinement and we have to adapt for the future, which now, especially in the context of Covid, lots of things have changed, especially regarding skills, that we are different balances of skills that we are needing in the future. I note that the statistic of 95 per cent of positive destinations reinforces the fact that you have university colleges as well as apprenticeships. There is a wide range of positive pathways for our young people, so I was glad to see that. I also noted the narrowing of the equity gap and the narrowing of the attainment gap. In Scotland, you may have noticed that we suffer sometimes from the Scottish cringe a wee bit. We can do down education and certain other things, and we do not celebrate our successes as much. I clarify that, in your opinion, and in the report's opinion, Scotland's education is performing well and internationally and that our education is not going backwards, because sometimes teachers get quite upset and so do parents and pupils get quite upset when we hear that narrative. The Scottish education is not that great. Those are the main comments. With regard to the census, I would totally agree with what is in the report as a practitioner. I found that they were not measuring properly the actual skills that we were teaching. What I also found was that disadvantaged children were even further disadvantaged because the context of the examples in the questions did not resonate with children who came from sort of poorer backgrounds, for instance. They would set stories in castles. In Scotland, that is not a good example. We have lots of castles, but I think that you get my general point. That is my overall thing, so thank you very much. It has been really interesting to read back from you about Scotland standing in education internationally and across Europe. That would be helpful. Thank you. That would be very interesting. For us, we see that curriculum for excellence has expanded the opportunities for Scottish learners to thrive. The four capacities that we find are very relevant to the future. Still, we think that it is important to further invest in it, but internationally you are watched as an example of high performance. In the data when we compare with other countries, you are above the average in a number of indicators, especially in the new one on global competencies at the OECD, which measures those types of skills. Scotland was a very high performer there. You are being watched internationally. We had a webinar to launch this report in June, and we had more than 1,000 participants logging in internationally, not only from Scotland but from the four corners of the world, who want to hear what Scotland is doing and how are you developing your curriculum? For us, policy always needs to be reviewed. We cannot have a policy that stays fit and you are not going backwards. You need to review for the future. It is important to continue the effort and to make sure that you are always reviewing it and updating it and making sure that it is fit for purpose. As our societies change, our education systems need to reflect that, and it is very important that you do so. This is how we looked at CFE on the need. After 10 years of implementation, you need to still review it professionally and see what is still working, what can be improved and define a good process that is institutionalised to do so. I thank you very much for that question. I have been going back to the co-cab. It was just to ask whether I totally agree that we need to refine. Do you think that we are in a good place to be able to move forward in many of the areas that you have said? Do you think that our structures are going to be fit for that purpose? We are going to be able to do that? This is a difficult question. Are your structures fit? We are providing a set of recommendations to have to consolidate the structures to make curriculum for excellence less political and more policy-oriented. We find that, at present, the politics overtake the policy, and that is why we think that it is important to have the right institutional structure so that CFE is professionally reviewed in an institution that has the experts to do so and consults externally with all the different stakeholders to be able to do so. For us, you have the will. Obviously, the whole system is so interested in education as one of the top priorities in public policy, so we welcome that. We think that that is immensely important. If that is such a priority for you, you will make it happen and drop the politics behind moving forward. A couple of colleagues I want to go back on, because I am just going to make sure that they get the opportunity to ask their questions. Fergus, do you want to come back in and ask a further question? I cannot hear you, unfortunately. I am very sorry. Can you hear me now, Stephen? Yes, I can. I was very pleased to hear the very positive remarks that Beatrice made with regard to the confidence that is displayed by Scottish young people. I thought that was a tremendously positive comment and very encouraging. I am afraid that I would have to echo Mr Dornan's remarks. I think that the remarks that another member made were inappropriate. Thank you for that. I am going to turn to James Dorn. I want to make sure that he has had an adequate opportunity to ask his questions. James, you are fine. In which case, I am going to return to a couple of members who have indicated that they would like to ask further questions, starting with Ross Greer. I would like to ask some questions for the purposes of the time. One question is on the governance arrangements around curriculum for excellence and specifically what your findings were in relation to the Scottish Qualifications Authority and Education Scotland as the two major agencies responsible for delivery and their relationship. In response to your report, the Scottish Government has announced that those two bodies are essentially being merged and that the inspection function of Education Scotland is being removed and becoming independent, which is supported across our Parliament. However, the body responsible for developing the curriculum and the body responsible for developing qualifications will now be brought together. If that is a common arrangement in other comparable education systems, I recognise the points that were made that the qualification system and the curriculum simply do not align. On the face of that, it makes a lot of sense. If we bring the two agencies together, hopefully, we will get better alignment. However, is that a common governance arrangement? We did find that, as I said before, that the system, as you said, is not aligned. You have SQA and CFE that do not respond to each other. In some systems, the SQA type of institution is a separate institution that does quality control or can be an inspectorate sometimes or others. You also have a unique system of qualifications that is very UK-based. Many systems do not have, so systems have an external test that is developed by the Government. That is it here. You have a set of qualifications that are developed by a semi-independent institution. It is a bit unique, actually, this approach. I am not sure what example I can give you. The one that was the most valuable one was the Irish NCCA, which is a professional institution that defines, reviews the curriculum and provides advice to the Government on how to shape the curriculum and then the Government takes action on it. 40 per cent of the points that are on policy are either second or quality goals. Something has gone wrong, or something is going right now. Back to you, Beatrice. The NCCA is an example that we build on for our advice for you because it is an independent institution that shapes the curriculum and gathers opinions from different stakeholders and has professional staff working on the different curriculum areas. We find Northern Ireland, for example, has both remits within one institution. At this point, I am not sure, but I can send you more information as soon as we get off and I can send you this. We did not recommend that qualifications and curriculum be in the same institution, but we said that student assessment beyond qualifications be with curriculum in the agency. That is up for us. We left it a bit open for Scotland to decide how to handle this, so we did not have a direct recommendation stating about SQA. Thank you for that. Ross, are you perfectly happy with that reply? Yes, thanks, convener. That was very useful. I am going to then turn to Willie Rennie. I think that Roman had something that she wanted to contribute to that comment. Maybe before we go to Willie, would you like to come in? Thank you, convener. It was just to reinforce what Beatrice said that when we speak about student assessment, it does not only apply to qualifications. In the report, it is very clear that we are talking about student assessment being treated by the same agency as the agency treating the curriculum so that they are coherent, but the question of qualifications is not part of that argument. It is left for further reflection by the Scottish Government. Thank you very much for adding that, and now I will turn to Willie Rennie. Thanks, convener. I want to turn to the issue of knowledge. You have made quite a lot of comment and conclusion recommendations in the report about how knowledge is addressed, that there is often a misunderstanding about what it covers, but also how it is addressed in the broad general education and how that should change. People have commented in your report that they find it difficult to catch up with the knowledge requirements of the senior phase because it is not being covered sufficiently in the broad general education, but the report also identifies a bias in the system to one of the four capacities, i.e., successful learners. Is there a tension there? Have I understood that correctly? Can you explain a little bit more about knowledge and what you think needs to be done in order to properly address it? We did find that there is a gap in the concept of knowledge in CFE and that the focus of senior phase is fully on knowledge. The focus on BGE is more on the four capacities, more broadly. Students were telling us exactly what you said, that when they arrive to a senior phase, they are not fully prepared because they have a broad type of pedagogy approach to learning. The new focus in a senior phase of only knowledge is challenging for them. The qualification system is weighing in in senior phase. That is one of the issues that we detected that is quite important and that is how kids are being tested fully in senior phase on knowledge, but not on the other types of skills and competencies. There is a gap for students at age 14-15 when they move on to this new regime of the two-term dash in a way. There is also another issue that Scottish knowledge is at the heart of Scotland's proudness. We understand how knowledge needs to be built in order for CFE to move forward well supported by everybody. We think that it is important to give it a bit more clarity in the vision to include knowledge a little bit more in the vision as you move forward so that it is well supported by everybody. We think that it is important to consolidate the concept in BGE so that kids arrive well prepared. There needs to be more of a seamless process for students in terms of knowledge from 3 to 18, rather than the four capacities and then only knowledge to consolidate that throughout CFE. Thank you for that. Elsewhere on the point, it talks about too much of an emphasis on the successful learners aspect of the four capacities. Is there not a slight contradiction in all of that, if you are saying more on knowledge, but in the other part of the report you are saying there is almost too much on knowledge? There is too much on knowledge in senior phase. We think that this is the balance that needs to be required that is not there yet. It is important to make sure that in senior phase the four capacities are better developed and better assessed so that the concept of knowledge is spread throughout the learning of students from 3 to 18. That is still something for you and Scotland to consider how best to make sure that knowledge is built across the four without forgetting the three other types of capacities that you prioritise and that we consider very important as well. Just one other short one then. Does that not then cause a problem with the connection with universities, further education, higher education and employers, that they are used to the current system of a focus on knowledge and now you are proposing changing that? How do we make sure that that is fully integrated and that we do not have a problem at that end by solving the problem between beiging and the senior phase? I think that we consider and have provided commentary on the assessment system needing to change that. It does not exclude knowledge but it gives some weight to the other types of skills and competencies. That is happening internationally and many universities and employers are recognising students also because of other types of skills that they consider as important as knowledge. We think that changing the assessment system will have an impact on how students are prepared throughout the whole system. Thank you, Willie, and a comment from Ruan on the same subject. Thank you, convener. Just a quick point about Mr Rennie's point about a question whether the bias on successful, towards successful learner and the lack of treatment of knowledge is a contradiction. It is not if you have a look at or look a bit deeper about what knowledge can cover and how there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways of using that knowledge. What the report is getting at and what our argument is is that it is not so much that there is not enough or too much knowledge. It is just that the focus is too much on one specific type of knowledge and one specific way of rendering and using that knowledge in the student assessment, for instance. That way is that, as students grow older and get to senior phase and are preparing for qualifications, they tend to narrow the kind of knowledge that they are focusing on because what is asked of them in most qualifications—again, the generalisation here—is rather to render the concepts and memorise content rather than show in a specific task or specific exam ways that they can use that knowledge in order to get to another conclusion or to build their arguments. I am emphasising here that I am not speaking about skills or competencies. I am talking about how the way of learning and the way of rendering the knowledge is also encapsulated in what we call knowledge and what we say that CFE should get into because knowledge is not only content and memorisation, but it is getting the facts right so that the argument, the thinking process and later on the development of skills, for instance, can have that basis. That is the distinction that is important to bring to the point that it is not a contradiction. It depends on how deep you are going into the concept of knowledge. I hope that that will help you. Thank you for that. It is very helpful. We have one final question before I return to the deputy convener for a comment. That is from Michael Marr. It is in the same line as the person who we have been having. Michael Marr. Those have been useful points. One of the most common comments that I hear from university principals and vice principals is a real concern about the level of knowledge and capabilities capacity within some of the people who are coming to them as undergraduates, particularly in STEM subjects, in terms of first years, having to re-teach or teach things that would previously, in their understanding, have been in the school curriculum. Willie Rennie's comments in terms of how we work with universities to try to understand that, or is there an inevitability in that? I think that it is perhaps something that the committee could discuss at a later point. My question relates to, in my mind, some of the causal factors around that. There is much research, including a report from the committee in the last session of Parliament, noting that a key issue of senior phase implementation was the timetabling issue in the fourth year, to get quite technical about that. That issue was predominantly created by moving from standard grades being 160 hours of teaching time over two years to nationals being 160 hours taken over one year. In your research, how key do you think that those issues are to the implementation of the curriculum? Any comments that you had on what seems to me to be the inevitable narrowing choice as a result of that in terms of the senior phase and the general education experience would be useful as well. Yes, thank you very much. We hear you. I think that this is a very valuable comment. The issue of depth versus breadth, especially in senior phase, is quite important. It was raised in a number of schools, by students and by principals especially. We heard students having to take 17 courses, or too many, so in the end they arrive into university without having depth into any subject. Having covered many subjects but not lacking the minimum level of knowledge and capacity in a specific area. That is why we did recommend potentially to find a choice that students should make. We were very impressed by everybody wanting to provide choice choice choice as much choice as possible for students and as much options for students in schools as possible. To find a balance between that choice and the quality of education provided and to define a number of typical pathways or profiles for students who would then go into university in specific areas and possibly have a limited number of compulsory courses that would give them enough breadth while also providing some choice and diversity of courses as well. How to marry that is an issue, but we think that it is important to tackle. That is a very good question. A brief comeback from Michael and then to Colcab. Maybe just on that issue of I have really struggled in terms of my home city of Dundee to try and understand some of this process where there has been a collapse in terms of choice for many students. It is not clear to me whether there has been driven by this process that we are describing alone or whether the fact that the council administration has cut one in eight teachers, 12 per cent of all teachers, out of the schools that is resulting in that kind of narrowing. Can you make any comment on the work that you did in terms of the resourcing of choice versus the structure of choice? What are the constraining factors? We did hear many principals saying that they did not have the teachers available to provide enough choice. That is an issue that was important in providing the right number of courses. The other one is that students choose strategically their courses because they want to get into university. Are they, themselves and their parents, also asking for an hour or a choice because that is what is being measured to enter into further education or higher education? There is a balance to be made in that. What is the question? Is it that schools do not have enough teachers to teach all the choice that is necessary or the school capacity or the classroom capacity? When they open up choice, they may have only three students instead of having—it is quite a resource issue to offer so much choice when it may not be taken up by so many. We heard of some very interesting partnerships. I do not know if it was in a school in Skye that we visited where they were collaborating with other schools to be able to provide—when they could not provide some choice, they were offering—it was between Orban and Tyree schools—partnering themselves so that they could offer the right amount of choice when one of the specific schools could not do that. Analyzing the number of teachers, the number of students who would enroll in courses was an issue that principals told us and led them to make strategic choices in terms of the courses that they would offer. Thank you for that and thank you to Michael Marra. I am turning to Co-Cab Stuart now for a comment and I am going to ask one final question if you will indulge me, but Co-Cab. Thanks Stephen. I will try and keep it brief. I am keeping an eye on the time there as well. It was just regarding the knowledge. I would like to thank the doctor for clarifying the gap in the concept of knowledge and for the contribution to clarifying what that meant. I would say that in primary school there is an emphasis on the application of knowledge, so you acquire knowledge but what do you do with it? You are using problem solving and critical thinking skills. I remember that the curriculum for excellence was based on Bloom's taxonomy, so knowledge is right at the bottom in that triangle of higher-order thinking skills. When we are looking at assessments, I think that I would agree that it does not match the knowledge but also how children learn as well as what children learn. Our young people are actually learning very differently. A lot of it is application of that knowledge using the critical thinking skills and the problem solving. At the moment, I do not think that our assessments actually measure it that way. We are still into pencil and paper or digital online as a replacement to that. I welcome your clarification, because I do not think that everyone always understands that. Everyone, you must learn facts, you must learn this, but what do you do with that? How is that going to benefit society or help you with your jobs? That also feeds into skills, because I mentioned that before. We will need people who can apply skills, not just knowledge. It broadens it out not only to university entry but also to colleges and to apprenticeships. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, co-cap. To go with that comment, let me ask one final question. You packaged together quite a lot of recommendations in your report. My simple question, and I am afraid that I will have to press you for a very short answer, is what recommendations should be prioritised? Which of your recommendations do you feel we should be looking at first, Beatrice? Difficult question to the end. It is a simple question. We have our core message for us is to find a balance between breadth and depth of learning throughout CFE and adapt the pedagogical and assessment practices in the senior phase. That is a very important one. I think that the balance between assessment and CFE needs to be found, and that should be a priority, but not immediate, because it will take a while to think about what is the best way to combine a systematic and inclusive approach to curriculum review with a clear division of responsibilities. We found that it was very complex—many people, many committees, many different institutions—and it needs to be more clearly divided, and then to support the teaching profession and aligning the qualifications to the curriculum. For us, what is important is that students should have a whole trajectory and not a gap between BG. Just to respond to Ms Stewart, what we heard from students is that, while hires are teaching to the test or test knowledge repeating in test, the advanced hires were actually quite welcomed by students, and they did feel that it was measuring more how they used knowledge to respond in a test. They were valuing that as more similar to the CFE experience. I will stop here. I do not know if Roman has anything to do or anything to say, or we are actually limited in time. No, let us hear from Roman. We have time for that. No, I think that Beatrice made the point very clear, and I would not want to add on to that, because that is really our core recommendations. Well, it remains for me to give you a very sincere thanks for the time that you have given us this morning. You have given us two hours. We have put you under a lot of questioning, and you have not wilted once, so thank you for that. For the tremendous benefit that you have given us, as you have responded so fully to the question. We are indebted to you, and we appreciate that. Thank you to Dr Beatrice Pawn and Roman Viennet from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Your time this morning has been an investment in our understanding of the work that you have done for us. Thank you very much indeed. The public part of today's meeting is now at an end, and I will now suspend the meeting. Can I ask members to reconvene immediately if they would on Microsoft Teams, and that will allow us to consider our final two items in private? Thank you very much.