 I ask those members who are leaving the chamber to please do so quickly and quietly, as we will now move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate in motion 1, 2, 3, 0, 4, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessments. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request and speak button. I call on Cabinet Secretary Jenny Gilruth to speak to and to move the motion up to 11 minutes, please. Please to open this afternoon's important debates on the recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. On Monday I met with the teaching professional associations to discuss qualifications reform, and I am grateful for their input thus far. I look forward to continuing to learn from their members' expertise in that respect. Last week I met with Opposition spokespeople and I very much hope that today we will be able to identify some areas of consensus on school reform. The Government will submit a formal response to the independent review in the coming weeks. It is important that today's debate informs that process. There are areas of the independent review's report that are moving at pace, but we need to be mindful of the current context that is faced by our teachers and young people. As Pam Duncan-Glansy's amendment today makes clear, she also rightly points out the importance of engaging with parents and young people. To that end I was grateful for the opportunity to engage on this matter with the Children's Commissioner yesterday. That context has changed since the pandemic started. Fully engaging with the teaching profession in what comes next will be a guiding principle for me as Cabinet Secretary. That is why I took the decision last year to pause legislative changes to the SQA and Education Scotland. I did so because of my direct engagement with the profession, particularly reflecting on what I heard from Scotland's secondary teachers. I commissioned further survey evidence to strengthen teacher voice in the reform process, and I would like to thank the thousands of teachers that contributed, the results of which were published yesterday. The online survey response represents the views of over 9,000 educational professionals, the majority of whom are teachers. Overall, the survey demonstrates that there is no clear and settled view among Scotland's teachers. Although almost all responses or respondents rather wish to see some change to qualifications and assessment, with some very supportive of the proposals, others favour a more incremental approach. My view is that the survey succinctly captures that changing context in our classrooms post Covid. Indeed, a number of factors, be those additional support needs, attendance, behaviour in relationships or teacher workload, as highlighted in the Labour amendment, are compounding the challenge in our classrooms every day. As Cabinet Secretary, I need to put in place a realistic programme of reform that takes into account the capacity of the system, as well as the budget in which we must operate. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that all those circumstances have just been set out are reasons to reform rather than to delay it? I thank the member for her intervention. I think that the context in which he has addressed is important. However, I think that she will recognise that I built in this additional year and I think that that has been important in the past year to capture teacher voice better in the reform process. I think that the system at the current time is dealing with a number of different pressures. Yes, reform offers us opportunities but we need to be mindful of how that plays out in terms of the practicalities. I want to come on to talk about some of that, particularly in relation to continuous assessment. How that reform to curriculum qualifications and assessment is advanced in that context, really requires to be understood, although I think that there is consensus in this Parliament that change must come. Crucially, reform needs to be interwoven with driving educational improvements. In their most recent report, the International Council of Education Advisers reminded us of this, stating that clear beneficial impacts on the learning and experience of young people and their teachers should be the acid test of any proposals. I firmly agree with that. I thank Professor Louise Hayward and her review group for the substantial report and recommendations on senior phase qualifications. I know that some, though not all, are asking for a significant change. The independent review makes 26 wide-ranging recommendations and challenges us to look at our senior phase qualifications offering differently. Central to the proposed new approach could be the creation of a Scottish Diploma of Achievement, comprising of three different elements. The first is programmes of learning or subjects, as they might be known in today's parlance. The review recommends that we change the balance of assessment away from that overreliance on high-stakes exams, increasing the use of digital assessment and removing exams completely at national 5, usually taken in S4. The second is project-based learning, a formal opportunity to build skills and put knowledge through a project based on interdisciplinary learning. The third is a personal pathway, an opportunity for young people to personalise their diploma by including a range of achievements that reflect their interests. Taken in their totality, the move to a Scottish Diploma would represent a radical departure from our current qualifications offering. When we change to our qualifications system, it requires to be managed carefully. Having been a teacher when curriculum for excellence was introduced, I know that there are lessons for the Government to learn in that respect on how we can work better to support the profession on qualification reform. As I announced to Parliament in December, a curriculum improvement cycle has already begun, with maths being the first area to be updated. Curriculum improvement in maths will look to work with the profession to better align the broad general education and the senior phase, ensuring smoother progression. I am pleased that we will shortly be able to appoint a maths specialist to lead on this work nationally. Indeed, that progression between the BGE and the senior phase should be seamless, but we know that this is not always the case. Additionally, while the new qualifications body will consider the content of qualifications to ensure progression as part of the curriculum improvement cycle, the other change needed relates to rebalancing the assessment methods as recommended by Professor Hayward. Indeed, we would ideally like to do both at the same time, but clearly that is not always going to be possible if we are going to make progress at pace. Not every qualification has to look the same in the future. Coursework requirements were reintroduced this academic year following the removal of modifications put in place during the pandemic. Although that was welcomed by some young people and teachers for some subjects, it has not been welcomed by all. I therefore ask the SQA to work with the teaching profession as part of its evaluation of 2024, to consider the experience of a return to full course assessment. That might, in the future, inform future potential changes that do not have to wait for substantive qualifications reform. I have also had an assurance from the chief examiner at the SQA that they will consider the impact of the reintroduction of coursework in their approach to grading this year, which is right and proper. That nuance is required in terms of external assessment waiting. I am firmly of the view that some subject areas would be better served by practical assessment. How that might be administered in every subject area will involve engagement with subjects specialist in our schools, but there should not be necessarily a requirement in the future that every single course needs a final exam per se. There are potential quick wins here, which I am keen to see the new qualifications agency moving at pace on working with the teaching profession. That partnership between our national bodies, local government teachers and professional associations will be really critical to implementing reform, as Mr Kerr's amendment notes. This cannot just be about our schools. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Indeed, she is postulating a fascinating thought. Does she have in her mind a timescale that we are looking at? Certainly with regard to the maths specialist, we are looking at implementation, not in this academic year, or possibly even in next academic year to see that now. Does she have in her mind a timetable for these amendments to the different approaches to assessment? There are two elements of that. The first is curriculum improvement. The curriculum improvement that I announced in December is going to have a maths specialist lead on it, and that report will work with the teaching profession and report later this year. We will update the curriculum this year and the maths followed by the English curriculum. We also need to engage with the new qualifications agency, which I will legislate for in the coming months, hopefully. Finally, the Government will submit its formal response in relation to Professor Hayward's recommendation setting out the timelines that the member speaks. I think that that is hugely important. However, the point that I was making is that there are a number of actions that we can take in the here and now to update the content of our courses. I think that it is important that teachers and our young people see progress to that end. We like tests in Scotland, as Professor Gordon Strobert has observed. In comparative terms, Scottish upper secondary school students are more frequently examined than those in other jurisdictions. We should contrast the school exams approach that is adopted by our universities, for example, many of whom have moved to a much more flexible approach to continuous assessment post-pandemic, so why not our schools? Our teachers would say and rightly so that that is because of the requirements stipulated by the SQA at the current time. However, the role of the new qualifications body has to be central to a move away from that examination's heavy qualifications focus towards more continuous assessment and how that requirement is implemented needs Government to learn lessons from the introduction of the national qualifications. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Can the cabinet secretary set out when she thinks that the new qualification body will be up and running and which cohort of pupils will be taking exams that they will set? I gave some of the response to the member's colleague in the previous intervention and, of course, I will legislate for the creation of the new qualifications body in the coming weeks. We expect that to be operational from 2025. There were requirements previously associated with the original approach to unit assessment, which accompanies the introduction of the current national qualifications. That is really important. It is the bread and butter of what teachers do every day. Those standards were, in my opinion, accompanied by overly bureaucratic standards, which required to be overcome by every pupil, for every unit and for every teacher to input to the SQA. How you administer continuous assessment really matters. We do not want a rerun of that box-ticking or overly administrative approaches that add to teacher workload and do nothing to improve outcomes for children and young people. Continuous assessment can support really good progression. We know that there are challenges right now between that four and that five, and particularly that jump on to hiring certain subjects. Getting that right through curriculum improvement will support Scotland's teachers and also improve outcomes for Scotland's young people. The best part of being education secretary is undoubtedly having the opportunity to visit Scotland's schools. I am always struck on my engagement in our secondaries by the extensive range of qualifications that are on offer. For many, that move has been a really welcome one, opening up non-traditional pathways. Professor Hayward's second substantive recommendation in relation to the number of qualifications that we have in our school is in relation to a rationalisation of that offer. My view is that a degree of rationalisation is needed to support clearer pathways for our young people and for the teachers working hard to support them. In that respect, I am supportive of the review's proposal to rationalise the existing range of courses. I am conscious of time. I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to the opportunities presented by project-based learning or in relation to more broadly how we can accredit the personal pathway element. Although I look forward to hearing views from members on those other two elements that would accompany any move to a Scottish diploma, undoubtedly change must be carefully planned. Of course, many teachers are now asking questions about the practicalities of how that might work in our classrooms. It was right and proper that we paused legislative reform last year to build in that opportunity for our teachers to fully engage with the report's proposals, because without them, reform cannot work. I fully agree with Liam Kerr, who said earlier this month that it is the responsibility of Parliament to address the current challenges in the Scottish education system by setting them out clearly and trying to work on a cross-party way to find solutions. That is what I am trying to do in respect of those recommendations on the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues across the chamber this afternoon in advance of the formal Scottish Government response. I move the motion in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Liam Kerr to speak to and to move amendment 12304.2 up to seven minutes please, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I actually really welcome this debate on what has become known colloquially as the Hayward review. Arguably, and I think that this is a point that Ross Greer might pick up later, we should have more time on this in order that the overview that cabinet secretary has given the overview that I'll give can be picked up in more depth as we go through the afternoon. But also because, to quote the commission on school reform, since the pandemic, a veritable plethora of reports on education have been published. There's a lot of reviewing and report writing but very little actual reforming. Now I looked into that and I discovered that just since the last election in this space there have been about seven reviews or reports, five of which alone contain over 130 recommendations. There have been 15 ministerial statements, 38 Scottish Government groups who've met over 300 times and over 300,000 words written. It's now eight months since Hayward's publication, nine since All Learners in Scotland Matter and Withers Fit for the Future, and nearly two years since the Mure report. This matters because just last Monday we read of warnings that the prolonged instability caused by the Stalled Reform programme was damaging staff morale and the delivery of services for teachers and pupils. The real danger that I worry about is that the further we move from the 2021 OECD review of CFE and the pandemic, the greater the likelihood of reform stalling. Despite this barrage of reports and recommendations and indeed the proposals outlined by the cabinet secretary there and for example the higher education minister in a very useful letter on Withers just yesterday, what I don't see is some overarching consideration which ensures that duplications in these reports or perhaps the contradictions are addressed or that an overall strategy is in place asking what resources might be needed, particularly given the cabinet secretary's comments there on the various pressures that do need addressed and that will require resources. So I agree with the cabinet secretary. Quick wins are good, but I just wonder what is in place to ensure that any such quick wins don't inadvertently prejudice other areas. As Dr Brown of the RSE warns, we do need to ensure that we learn from any mistakes that have been made in the past. My overall concern here is that absent all of that, any reforms might not take teachers, staff and professionals along. So, whilst the Hayward recommendations have received strong backing, some of the results of the consultation that was alluded to yesterday really are sobering. And as Andrea Bradley of the EIS has demanded, it is imperative that those who implement any reforms are listened to very carefully. And what those results from around 9,300 people tell us is that there's far from universal agreement with the Hayward recommendations. In particular, over half of responses disagreed with the recommendation to do away with external exams below higher levels such that assessment would be internal only. They, and a significant number of commentators besides, raised concerns about the proposal, suggesting that removal could lead to pupils struggling with a transition to hires and beyond. And indeed, I recall Mike Corbett at the NASUWT last summer, warning that it risks making exams in S6 incredibly high stakes in a context where there hasn't been meaningful practice. And questions have also been raised around standardisation and consistency of assessment, quality assurance, verification of what assessments count and how it might be cross-marked. And of course, the perception, understanding and tolerance of employers. And the point about practice was one made by Professor Lindsay Paterson last year, when he suggested exams help prepare pupils progressing to further or higher education. And this is a point made to me by several such providers, not only about the ability to set up new admissions procedures, the cost and time for them to implement that, but also the ability of certain institutions to move away from traditional methods of consideration. And of course, I also worry about the workload implications for teachers, particularly in the context of class sizes remaining greater than is desirable, if they're then going to have to take on an even greater burden of internal assessment. Now that, of course, is part of the proposed Scottish Diploma of Achievement, which is intended would transform the senior phase experience and consists of the three elements that the Cabinet Secretary set out in detail, the programmes of learning, personal pathway and project learning. There's a lot interesting in there, as the Cabinet Secretary set out, and we'll no doubt hear more as the afternoon progresses. But just to be clear, I've real concerns about the, of course, completely inadvertent, but definite possibility that bringing in a Scottish Diploma with its inherent project learning and personal pathways based on assessed coursework could disadvantage pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds, given that, for example, pupils from more wealthier backgrounds will have greater access to things like extracurricular activities. Those in rural settings, looked after children, young carers, disabled pupils might also be similarly disadvantaged. In a context where there's been little meaningful progress in closing the attainment gap, which we all know remains stubbornly high, two seconds please, Mr Greer, and the gaps in primary school writing and numeracy are higher than pre-pandemic levels. The last thing we can be doing is risk exacerbating that problem. I'm grateful to Mr Kerr for taking the intervention. I agree if we simply put the project learning on to an already unequal system, we'll increase that inequality. I'd be interested in his perspective, though, on the system that we have at the moment, because the comparative dataset that we have from 2020 and 2021, where we didn't have high-stakes end-of-term exams, showed a narrower attainment gap than the traditional exam model. So clearly there's a level of inequality in the system as it stands, and I'd be interested in how he thinks we could reconcile that with a move towards more continuous assessment. Yeah, I think that's a really interesting point, actually, and key to that goes back to what I was talking about earlier, that we really need to interrogate what's going on here, interrogate the data, interrogate what happened several years ago and why we got the results that we did, and then interrogate the myriad reports that are around that to ensure precisely that we are getting the real learnings, the real in-depth nuanced learnings from all of those to make sure that we come up with the right conclusion. So I think it's a very valid point well made. Regrettably, Presiding Officer, I haven't time to talk at a slight tangent about the outstanding foundation apprenticeship model, which is being delivered by Aberdeenshire Council. I wanted to, because it's demonstrating an awful lot of the things that are desired by this review, such as raising attainment in the attainment gap, developing the meta skills that we all want to see, employer engagement and rounded assessment and qualifications. But I'm hoping to take up the cabinet secretary's offer, which I know that she's sincere about, to work collaboratively on that going forward and hopefully bring whatshire council are doing to the chamber. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, the Haywood review is a very important and stimulating report, but there are challenges to it. What we must see coming from this report, from today's debate and all of the responses from the sector in yesterday's consultation report is real, meaningful action. Thank you. I think that the amendment requires to be moved. I now call on Pam Dacum Glancy to speak to and to move amendment 12304.1 up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I'd like to start by thanking Professor Louise Hayward on our team and all the teachers, pupils, support staff and parents for the work they did on this. They and we have eagerly awaited next steps, and so I'm pleased that the cabinet secretary has brought this debate today. As well as discussing qualifications and assessments, it is important that we view them as one piece in the jigsaw and recognise how they fit with the many other reviews, consultations and surveys that have been carried out too. While they are missing from the Government motion, I do welcome the Government mentioning them in their opening remarks. The case for change is compelling. Right now, things are not working as they should. For pupils, particularly those with additional support needs, for teachers and support staff who are burdened by heavy workloads, or for society that relies on the education system today, getting it right for the generation of children who will deliver the skills we need to grow the economy of tomorrow. A failure to implement commitments that could address some of the issues that we see today—increased non-contact time, reduced class sizes and support for children with additional needs—has held back potential, caused a decline in pupil and parental engagement, and driven people away from the teaching profession. The cabinet secretary is right to recognise that things are difficult and that we need to take people with us and time to do that, but those are reasons to reform, not reasons to delay. One of the most pressing examples of why reform is crucial can be seen and heard in the experience of children with additional support needs. The scale of how badly they are being let down is coming over starkly in our committee inquiry, and it is not just about a lack of support. They are also being done a disservice in the way in which we attempt to measure their success, so we have to change that. If we can get it right for them, we will and can get it right for every child. For too long, we have fostered a narrative by which the only way to be successful in education is to get high grades and academic assessment shown through performance in high stakes exams. We need to change that, and that is why this debate is important and reform is pressing. The reform suggested, and particularly the programme element courses that are in there, and then assessment, is perhaps the most recognisable to what we have now, but this bit will need to come with significant reform, too. Abroad in the curriculum, with a focus on knowledge and skills to grow the economy for the future, significant attention to the recruitment and retention of school staff, and the ability for education institutions to innovate and deliver parity of esteem. Partnerships between schools and colleges that allow that and pupils to take college-level courses in place of hires in national fives and subjects that are not otherwise included in the school curriculum—for example, engineering, catering or social care—should be supported and encouraged. Making those broader skills and courses available and crucially by valuing them and by valuing colleges, too, we can enable more young people to broaden their opportunities. Pam Duncan-Glancy, for giving way the point, I was trying to make earlier on that we currently have quite a cluttered approach to qualifications within the school sector. I wonder if the member would reflect upon whether or not some of those subjects should always be delivered in school or whether or not there are other places in which they might better be supported, for example, in the college sector. Pam Duncan-Glancy? I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I think that those opportunities need to be available to children and young people in Scotland wherever they are, so some children and young people will flourish in schools in those subjects and some will require a different environment, including, for example, college or elsewhere. I think that it needs to be considered specifically to the needs of the children and young people that are in our schools and education system today. I think that this look at the curriculum is important because, since the introduction of the curriculum for excellence, we have seen a narrowing of it. The 2 plus 2 plus 2 structure is still prevalent and means that children are rushed to pick subjects that they want to take forward to qualification as early as S3 so that there is more time to teach them and the relevant content to pass the high-stake exam. That culture of teaching to test stifles ability to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of the areas in which a child might excel or have an interest. It disengages pupils and it can limit their future choices and should be reformed. Allowing room to study more subjects is crucial, but so too is making the content within them fit for purpose and applicable in the modern world, for example by clearly linking learning to future careers, like how maths can lead to a career in tech or gaming. Reform needs to include a stronger focus on developing skills in problem solving, oracy and cross-subject work too, so that young people head out to the world of work or further in higher education with the rounded skills that they will need. To facilitate that broader learning, we will need to tackle staff workload, deliver increased non-contact time and address shortages in teachers, including in computing, STEM and in rural areas. The way in which we assess all of that should be reformed too. We must recognise the potential in all of our young people and to deliver what employers, colleges and unis need to. Assessment must benchmark talent. There is value in exams as they can act as a comparator within our system and to other places, but we should acknowledge that the uniform show of knowledge that they demand does not work for everyone. Some children's talent will be demonstrated in other ways. Some will struggle to recite an answer on paper, but that does not mean that they have not taken in what they have learned. Reducing the weight and format of exams could help with that. So too could a changed approach to the way in which we talk about qualifications, the way in which we develop them, award them and accredit them so that we can re-engage pupils through the delivery of parity of esteem and improve outcomes for all pupils, including pupils with ASN. I also believe that the Government should accept the recommendations of Professor Kenmure to split the functions in the new bodies that replace the SQA and Education Scotland. I believe that doing that will be fundamental to meaningful reform. Recognising and valuing a young person's journey in unique talents is crucial to spreading and foster opportunity, and the personal pathway in the diploma has the potential to do and value talent for all. However, this approach must, as others have said, recognise that it is about valuing potential and removing barriers and guard against inequality. Well-off children shouldn't have an unfair advantage, and pupils with ASN should have access to the same extracurriculars as other children. I believe that we can do this if we measure success in schools differently, implement the Morgan review and by supporting youth work. Presiding Officer, what is clear is that for so many reasons reform is needed, and it is urgent because we should never pit one path against another. We should broaden opportunity and we should empower young people to take the path by which they excel and then empower schools and education authorities to set them on that path. Every child should face the world with no glass or glass or step ceiling in their way, knowing they are valued and equipped with the knowledge and skills that can transcend barriers. We will need to reform to do that, to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, and, colleagues, we need to do it quickly. Now we know what is needed, it is time to leave behind an era of review and usher in an era of implementation, deliver the education system that our young people need so that they can both enjoy and then create the opportunities of tomorrow. I welcome the constructive and open discussion last week with the cabinet secretary. I thought that that was quite a helpful session. She was much more open than I was expecting her to be, but she was a good thing. I have to say today that it is ridiculous to have a speech in four minutes to try and sum up what I think in this. We do need much longer to discuss those things, so I hope that we get more time at a future opportunity. This is not year zero. 2016 was not even year zero. It was year zero way before that. I think that the education community has been expecting significant reform after the reviews that Liam Kerr, I thought, very meticulously set out. I pity the researcher who was tasked with working all that out—the number of committees that have existed, because there are lots and lots of them. However, there have been various reviews. There is an expectation being built up in the education community that change is going to come. The sudden change of direction is quite a sudden change of direction. I will come on to explain what my views about that sudden change of direction are. However, I think that that sudden change has discombobulated the education sector. I think that it is a bit confused as to exactly what is going to happen. That is why this debate needs to give some clarity today. I have sympathy with the argument that there is enough going on. I accept that, with behaviour and additional support needs, the high absence rates means that the sector is under—together with various other things—a lot of pressure. I have sympathy with that argument. I think that we need to be really careful about how we progress forward now. The problem with that is that there is an expectation, and she set it out—her previous First Minister set it out—that by 2026 we are going to have improvement—educational improvement internationally, and we are going to be closing the poverty related attainment gap, whether that is substantially or completely. There is an expectation in the electorate that that is going to be done. We have enough going on argument is that that implies that we are going to stick with the status quo until we have got it under control. Therefore, we cannot just accept the status quo. We need to have improvements. The problem that I have in particular with the behavioural issue is that I do not think—also with the absence policy that the minister set out—that I do not think that that is enough. I think that we need to have leadership from the top explaining why we think that the assessment on behaviour needs to change. She knows that I am in favour of setting clear boundaries and having micro-consequences, as some call them, so that pupils know where they stand. I think that that is required in our schools, and teachers need to know that the education secretary has got their back when they take those steps. Before Christmas, I set out a number of changes that I thought should be included. On knowledge, I think that she has moved now. On maths, I think that that is a welcome step to increase the knowledge content. I think that that is really welcome. On resources, Pam Duncan-Glantys, we need progress on that. I am not particularly confident that the cabinet secretary will be able to deliver it, but we need it. I have talked about behaviour already. I think that we need to change the SNSAs. The standardised assessments for P1s are ridiculous. I think that they should go. I think that they undermine the curriculum for excellence approach that we have adopted, and the broader approach to education. I think that accountability. The problem with delaying the reforms to the national bodies is that we are leaving a vacuum. We need national bodies that have hefts that are able to challenge the educational establishment. I have not even got on to Hayward. I am going to quickly rattle through Hayward. On exams, I broadly accept where Carol Ford is and the commission for school reform on that. I disagree with Pam Duncan-Glantys. I think that we should move back to the 222. I think that that avoids the two-term dash. I have sympathy with changing the continuous assessments. I think that looking at reform of the number of qualifications that we have is sensible. I do have concerns about introducing a personal pathway. The personal pathway is a big step, particularly how we are going to validate it. Project work, we could do more project work, not just the tokenistic stuff that some are implementing. Parity of esteem, I think that we should be using the SEQF framework much more explicitly. We should be looking at the insight programme, which drives much of the behaviour in schools in terms of what headteachers are trying to encourage pupils to participate in. I have not really dug into that. We need so much more time. As we move to the open debate, I remind all members to check that they have in fact those who are wishing to speak press the request of speak button. I would also advise that members have back bench speeches of up to four minutes. With that, I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Sue Webber. This SNP Government has an excellent track record of investing in Scottish education with significantly more teachers per pupil than Tory-led England or Labour-run Wales, and, likewise, Scotland has more schools per pupil than Wales and in England also. Scotland has the highest level of school spend per pupil anywhere in the UK by £1,300 per pupil, and has shielded students from the extortionate financial burdens by abolishing tuition fees in 2007 and graduate endowment fees a year later. This has went some way to reducing the poverty-related attainment gap, which is a massive issue in my constituency. I want to say at the start of my speech here I want to put in my thanks on record to all staff and pupils at schools across Coltbridge and Chrysyn for their on-going hard work and commitment. Turning to the substance of today's motion, I welcome the final report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment, which was published last June, and the sub-worth of recommendations. The time for change is now. The question over reform has been around for some time, but the pandemic has certainly exasperated the need for change. I want to take just a couple of minutes to pay tribute to those young people whose education was severely disrupted during the pandemic in an unprecedented way. I think that as that period becomes further and further in the past, it can become easier to forget the situation that unfolded for our young people. Children were off school for months over separate periods. Learned online was separated from friends. All that was necessary, and we all agree that, to stop the spread of the virus, the known and still unknown consequences on our children's learning and overall wellbeing of that could be extremely significant and could never be underestimated. I believe that the Scottish Government does recognise that. That is why I welcome, for example, the work that the Cabinet Secretary has been undertaking on behaviour in schools, because there is no doubt to me—and I am sure others across the chamber—that there has been an increase in reported difficulty behaviours within schools, in my case load, and much of that I feel can be attributed to the pandemic period. I very much welcome the measures that are set out by the minister today, including adopting the Scottish Diplom of Achievement as a graduation certificate for all senior phase educational settings, the end of exams in S4 and a wider range of assessment methods used in hires and advanced hires, and a digital profile for all learners, which allows students to record personal achievements and identify and plan future learning. I am pleased with the decisions around in-person exams and the direction that we seem to be heading in, and I believe that that will be welcomed by young people across the country. Indeed, during a recent visit to St Andrew's High School in Coltbridge, when speaking to the modern studies classes, I asked the pupils outright if there were four in-person exams or a continuous learning model, and it was an overwhelming majority for the latter, so it is good that, at last, we are appreciating the stress that the exam process can have on our young people. I think that we all know that education is very much an interconnected tapestry, and we must strive to deliver real change in the round. One area that I think that we can achieve better outcomes longer term is by raising the school starting age and implementing a kindergarten phase for our young people. Of course, that is indeed SNP policy, and it is no secret that having a school starting age of five makes Scotland, the UK an outlier in an international sense. Yes, we need to be radical to do it and willing to invest in a future dividend, but the time to do it is now. The potential benefits could be substantial and help to tackle the growing issues of child and adolescent emotional and mental health, diagnosis cases of learning and behavioural difficulties, and the poverty-related attainment gap. Following leading up the given time campaign in here from a Parliament angle, I am pleased to say that I will be progressing this issue in this place, and I will be meeting with the lead organisation Upstart and lodging a motion for members' business in the coming weeks, and I hope to have support from members across the chamber. To conclude, I welcome the report on today's motion, and I believe that we have strong foundations to build on as we move forward. We cannot afford to think that the curriculum for excellence that was introduced in 2010-2011 will still be fit for purpose by the end of this century, and indeed it is terrifying to think that those entering our early years provision now will still be working at the end of this century. Societal changes are happening at breakneck speeds, and digital evolution is at the very front of those changes. Thinking of the speed of technological evolution, I googled breakthroughs in 2010. An up came an article from Business Insider in December 2010, entitled what was the most groundbreaking invention of 2010, and number one it was the iPad. And why was it groundbreaking? It said that the iPad is the first widely used touchscreen tablet, and according to one analyst it is the fastest-selling non-phone gizmo in consumer electronics history. The iPad is so influential. Clothes and bags are being customised to carry it easily. Larger than a cell phone and lighter than a laptop, the iPad is transforming the way people work on the go. We all know what happened to the iPad, and so much, and so like technology and society, things must move on rapidly, evolve and adapt. That is why we on the Scottish Conservative Benches understand and accept the need for education reform, and that that should be taking place at pace. What that reform might look like is very much up for discussion, and that is why having cross-party support for the premise to accept change is essential and a critical first step in the process. Let us not forget that, under the SNP Government, education has gone backwards in international rankings. Scores in maths, science and reading are at an all-time low. Almost half of Scottish schools have not been inspected in 10 years. There has been a failure in making significant progress in closing the elusive attainment gap. Previous attempts by the SNP for an education bill were abandoned despite being called a flagship policy. Teacher numbers are down by over 1,000 since the SNP came to power. In 2007 there were 55,100 teachers. In 2023 there are now 54,000 and 33, and with the threat of more losses in Glasgow specifically, where teacher numbers are likely to reduce by over 400 in the next three years. The SNP has failed to deliver on the free school meals for all primary school children, despite promising to do so by August 2022. Entries in science subjects at higher level are at their lowest level in five years. As I have stated previously, it is now a question of what reform might look like and the pace of change that this has implemented. We have heard that in the period just after the pandemic, if such a period can be defined as such, there was a real significant appetite for change from those working in the profession. However, now we are aware of widespread concerns that are highlighted by teachers surrounding some aspects of their view. For example, 57 per cent of teachers disagree with scrapping the exams for S4 pupils, so we have to be careful. It is imperative that the implementation of any of its recommendations be done in conjunction with teachers. However, let us not forget the critical role of parents, pupils and other staff, with their voices being equally important when considering changes. The collaborative approach will ensure that reforms are not only well informed but also reflective of the practical realities within classrooms across Scotland. We want to see urgent action to reverse the decline of Scottish education instead of more dithering and delay. It is essential that the needs of pupils are prioritised throughout the process. We cannot follow a reform agenda that results in the status quo. Far too often, our young people in schools have been let down before. I call for no more extensive and costly reviews that lead to frustrating delays. Other countries are striving ahead with their education reform agenda and it is time that the Scottish National Party Government has in the race. We cannot afford to let our children down. They are, after all, the future and we have to equip them with the skills to face a rapidly evolving future that is ahead of us. Tuesday's important debate and the importance of getting this right is critical, not just for our young people, learners and the wider economy and society. In the report itself, the Hayward Report mentions a reference to the World Economic Forum that identifies education systems globally and lagging behind the disruption that is taking place in economy and society, driven by technology and other factors. We are living in an increasingly competitive international economy. Countries across the globe are developing their education systems at depth and scale. That is great for economic development, but it makes it even more competitive. India produces about 2.5 million STEM graduates annually at the moment, and that is what we are competing against. Scotland's competitive advantage will be building on our strong educational legacy to stay ahead of those trends and our competitors. It is a key issue for inward investment and business growth. The availability of skills is the factor that inward investors identify most when they come to Scotland. Not how much money Scottish Enterprise gives them, not anything else that is going on. The great skills pipeline that we have is coming through our higher and further education system, so it is hugely important that that continues to keep us in that pole position. What employers and businesses need is those meta-skills, critical thinking, innovation and interpersonal skills, teamwork and much besides, but also critically it should not be coming through, young people coming through with knowledge as well. The combination of both of those is absolutely critically important. Technology does not solve all problems. You cannot doodle everything, you need to understand the answers when they come back and how you apply them, and that is absolutely essential. It is important that that builds on and supports the curriculum for excellence agenda. The review that identifies the importance of project learning is a key part of the proposed Scottish diploma for achievement. It was welcome that the cabinet secretary mentioned that briefly in her opening remarks. That allows that project work, that allows learners to develop those meta-skills through work in areas that they have interests in, and it is also important that that, in many cases that were cited in the report, brings entrepreneurial skills and project work that involves business start-up ideas. I think that that is where the work of this review needs to be closely aligned with the work of the national strategy for economic transformation in two aspects. First of all, it is about the skills actions, which are one of the five pillars of NSET and the close alignment between the work and how NSET sees that taking forward into the economic space. It is also about our drive to create more entrepreneurial start-ups within Scotland and enthusing young people with the understanding that that is a very legitimate, worthwhile and encouraged career path for them to take forward. I believe that those encouraged meta-skills in that project-based learning helps to draw that out among young people and highlight the link between that curriculum work and what they may choose to do in their future career path. I, as we all do, spend time visiting schools in my constituency and engaging with young people. Because of the work that I have done previously, I minister and continue to do engaging with the business community. I go from that environment to talk to businesses who are in Scotland's tremendously world-leading growth sectors, in space, in life science, in fintech, in financial services, in many others, in advanced manufacturing and many others besides. That link always strikes me as being somewhat challenged by the understanding within the school environment of what those opportunities are in the work environment and the very well-paid jobs and fulfilling careers that exist in those sectors of the future. Anything that can be done to ensure that young people, teachers and others in the school environment, of where the changes to the curriculum can lead in terms of very worthwhile and profitable career opportunities is something that needs to be done. I know that business is keen to be part of that work. In summary, I am glad to see the Government taking that work forward. The hugely important task would be to continue to engage with business and other employers as I know that it would happen, as part of the Hayward review as well, of course, with others engaged in the education system, teachers, parents, pupils and staff. In the short time that I have, I would firstly want to welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary did call and consult with school and college teaching professions. I think that that is absolutely right and it is good. The proof of the pudding will be what views are then taking on board, of course, but I think that it is the right approach. The Cabinet Secretary also said that reform must come alongside driving educational improvement, and I agree with that. That must be also to address some of the issues that we have currently within our education system that are being widely published through the media and elsewhere. The response itself looked at short-term, medium-term and long-term priorities, although, when you read it, they come quite similarly. The issues raised in the response looking at reform saying that it needs to be underpinned by adequate and sustained funding to increase teaching and support staff. That is a major issue that we have seen come up over the past few months, as education and the issues in education have been raised, particularly by teaching staff themselves through the many meetings that I have had, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary has had. Teacher workload is a big issue that continually is raised when you speak to teachers or when you go into the meet with the trade unions. Support pupils with additional support needs. I think that I have said to the Cabinet Secretary before where I have met with parents with additional support needs. They feel that getting it right for every child has not necessarily worked through the mainstream in the schools, but they make the point that if you want to get it right for every child by mainstreaming, you have to ensure that the support is there for kids with additional support needs. There are big issues there that need to be addressed and the curricular and technological resources. Sometimes, if you look at schools in more prosperous areas, they have been able to raise lots of funds and they have the very best equipment and you go into schools in the less prosperous areas and they do not have that same type of resource, so I think that it is important. I also want quickly to say in terms of the point that Willie Rennie raised about behaviour. I think that we have to set out what is acceptable, what is not acceptable and what the consequences are. That is something that teachers are crying out for. Teachers say to me that it is not always clear that there will be consequences for poor behaviour. Although the Cabinet Secretary would quite rightly point out that the majority of pupils in schools are generally well behaved and are getting on with things, all that needs is one child in a classroom to completely disrupt that class. I really believe that we need to be much firmer and much clearer. I remember speaking to a teacher some months ago and I talked about the word discipline. I think that I was referring to when I was at school on being disciplined and the teacher made the point to me that they are not encouraged to use the word discipline in schools. You have to talk about positive rip, positive outcome and positive behaviours. Let us be absolutely clear, we kids. You are expected to be disciplined when you are in the school. You cannot disrupt the education of everyone else. I think that there has to be clear guidance given around that. The other point briefly, which I really do believe in, is the point where responses said that one of the most important recommendations that responses emphasised was the need for equal recognition of academic and vocational qualifications. I think that that is absolutely correct. For a lot of pupils at that point in their life, they might go on to do academic work later in life, but we have to ensure that that route there for vocational education is improved and enhanced to compare it where it is now, but that is me at your time. I welcome the publication of It's Our Future, the final report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I agree that it is crucial that the Scottish Government ensures a fair and credible qualifications and assessment system that enhances learning and teaching and creates improved outcomes for all young people. I also agree with the main thrust of the two amendments to today's motion, namely that teachers, parents and pupils need to be at the heart of any reform and I sincerely believe that the Scottish Government has been and continues to be committed to ensuring that this is the case. In September 2022, the Scottish Government launched a national discussion Let's Talk education, where it invited all young people in Scotland from 3 to 18 to share their ideas, views and experiences around education. As part of the Let's Talk education strategy, resources were developed to help to promote discussion and events that took place all over Scotland, led by schools, community groups and third sector organisations. Those discussions were, along with feedback from parents, carers and teachers, vital in shaping the recommendations contained in It's Our Future. Recommendations that will see the adoption of a Scottish diploma of achievement as a graduation certificate for all senior-phase educational settings, an end of exams in S4 and a wider range of assessment methods used in higher and advanced hires and a digital profile for all learners to allow them to record personal achievements and identify and plan future learning. Those changes start in 2024 and again I agree that those reforms must be taken forward with the voice of young people and teachers at their heart. I also agree with Professor Haverd, the other voice that plays a key role in education, one that is perhaps often overlooked, needs to be front and centre and that is the voice of those involved in youth work. As the professor said, reform means bringing together all of our resources in education and in youth work and in other areas to focus those and to make best use of each of the individual components to give every learner the best possible chance and youth work has got to be a central part of that process. Molly McGorran, chair of the Scottish Youth Parliament, also said, generally for young people, we are seeing that youth work has so much value in the education space and poverty prevention and crime reduction is really central to everything young people can get out of what they should be able to get out of their community. A national discussion carried out by Youth Links Scotland showed that 88 per cent of respondents wanted the skills that they learned through youth work to be acknowledged alongside formal qualifications and 87 per cent felt that young people should have access to youth work in school. I believe that the value of youth work is clear and I also believe that it needs to be further recognised and incorporated into any future reforms. In this respect, I would be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary how we can include those voices on the journey and equally keen to explore the issue further with the education committee colleagues as we shape the exciting further reforms into the future. I have got a lot to cram into four minutes, but the cabinet secretary need not worry, I can write to her at length about this if required. I do agree with Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie that we need to do this again with a full afternoon's debate once more at least. The Greens have long argued against high stakes in the term exams and in favour of continuous assessment because what we want to see is a rounded measurement of a student's knowledge and ability, not a snapshot of how they respond to specific circumstances and one that can be affected significantly by variables such as illness. The pandemic gave us comparative data sets, which proved that there is a problem here somewhere. In 2020, there were no exams, grades were eventually issued on the basis of teachers' professional judgment. Attainment went up across the board, but the attainment of working class kids went up far more. The attainment gap narrowed. In 2021, no exams again, quasi-internal exams in schools—the same effect but to a lesser extent—neither normal exams or devaluing working class students or teacher judgment is overestimating them. I trust teacher judgment to a significant extent, but whatever side you come down on, that question needs to be answered as we go on with the process. Why is it that traditional high stakes end-of-term exam models result in such a wide attainment gap between those from the most and the least deprived backgrounds, whereas models that base grades on evidence generated through continuous assessment or teacher judgment result in a far narrower gap? The reality is that our exam and assessment system has not changed since the Victorian era, but we know so much more about young people, about learning, about how to measure attainment and achievement than we did back then. In Scotland, we over-assess and we often assess the wrong things. We are valuing what we measure here and not measuring what we value. Young people, colleges, universities and employers want more than that. Professor Hayward's recommendations are the opportunity to move from the 19th to the 21st century. I recognise the tension between the appetite for reform and the clear message from teachers that the current system is not achieving what we want, with the sense also from teachers themselves primarily that they are already overwhelmed and that they would struggle with more change. We certainly cannot increase teacher workload by adding more internal assessment responsibilities on top of existing ones, but we need to break that impasse. I am glad that the motion makes clear that the intention is to achieve significant reform in this Parliament. Young people themselves have made clear repeatedly through consultation that they overwhelmingly want those reforms, particularly the move to continuous assessment. We saw that in the review of the 2021 alternative certification model. A move away from external exams requires trusting teachers. The kind of trust that exists in other systems, such as in Finland, but Scottish teachers do not feel trusted by the SQA. Many feel that the standardised assessments indicate a lack of trust from the Scottish Government as well. There are a couple of specific issues that I would like to run through that I think we need to address here. One is the external exams in all three years of the senior phase. Professor Stobart highlighted what an outlier that makes us, and it is a key reason why we are not really delivering CFE in the senior phase, we are teaching to the exam. The Greens would rather end external examination in S4, but we recognise the need to mitigate against qualifications without an external examination being seen as lesser. We want to see a reduced role for exams across the senior phase. We also need to resolve the contradiction between the ability to choose up to nine national fives, each course requiring at least 140 hours. You cannot timetable nine times 140 in a school year. That speaks to a wider misalignment between the curriculum and the qualifications systems, identified by the OECD, and that, in turn, is the result of a lack of cohesion between the SQA and Education Scotland, so the governance reforms need to address that potentially by putting more strategic direction within the Government's learning directorate. The Greens are very enthusiastic about Professor Hayward's recommendations. I would urge the Cabinet Secretary to implement them in full. I have one caveat about the diploma. I think that we need to make sure that those who do not get a diploma do not end up with the kind of stigma that we see in systems such as the United States, where there is a stigma around not graduating high school. There is a really important opportunity for employers, in particular here, with the personal pathway and project learning, which will recognise things like a potential candidate's team-working skills, their leadership abilities, their communication skills, things that traditional subject qualifications do not give an indication of to an employer. I barely scratched the surface, but I recognise that they need to round up so many more issues to touch on, but there is a high expectation that we achieve a lot with this reform process. There is a relatively high level of consensus, so we cannot afford half measures. One clear lesson from the last reform to Crickham for Excellence was that it was a mistake to only do half of it to not reform qualifications at the same time. We cannot do that again. We need to be brave and seize this opportunity to create a system that will serve young people in our society for decades. I will use my time today to emphasise some of what Professor Hayward has said. First, I draw Parliament's attention to the evidence that we received at the Education and Skills Committee on 20 September last year. Professor Hayward, at the beginning of her evidence, made five key points that I think are worth repeating. First, she said that the report offers a long-term direction of travel for qualifications and assessment in Scotland. She emphasised that this is not a quick fix, it is about thinking about the future and making sure that we have a future that serves every learner and Scotland as a nation, as a whole. That is a really important point that feeds into what the cabinet secretary said about taking the necessary time. Yes, moving at pace where it is possible and practical, but taking the necessary time to make sure that we get this reform right. Secondly, Professor Hayward emphasised that although the review is called the Hayward Review colloquially, it could not be further from the truth in her view in that she engaged across the country with a range of different stakeholders, and that the thinking and agreed positions in the report are from across all those communities. Again, that lends itself to the emphasis that the Government is giving to engaging with the profession and all other stakeholders, and it is great to see the party political consensus on that in the amendments proposed. That wide engagement going forward is so important in my view. Thirdly, Professor Hayward emphasised that vision is absolutely crucial. She was keen to really impress upon us at committee that if the vision is not set, then there is a real danger through the years of implementation that we lose sight of where we are trying to get to collectively. At that point, there is a process that will begin again of another review. Absolutely within the profession and within those stakeholders that are relevant to reform, we have to get the agreed vision as solidified and a collective place as much as possible. I also think that that applies to the political sphere. I think that we will be able to serve our constituents better in this reform if we agree a position as much as possible and avoid party political attacks on this issue and focus on the national interests of getting reform right. Fourthly, Professor Hayward emphasised that the pace of putting ideas into practice should depend on the level of resourcing that is available. She stated that it is about working through the ideas and being realistic about the investment that can be made as they develop, and I think that that is a really important point for us all to keep in mind in the context of the financial challenge that we face nationally. Fifthly, Professor Hayward said that there is no idea contained in her report that is not being already implemented in at least one other country. I think that that is really significant for us to keep in mind that there is learning that we can take from other countries around the world as we engage in this reform. Two recommendations that I think could be quick wins in the time that I have remaining. Firstly, recommendation 12 about artificial intelligence. It is emphasised that, as a matter of urgency, the Scottish Government should convene and lead a cross-sector commission to develop a shared position on AI. If we do not get ahead of the AI revolution, we will fall behind economically and, of course, that applies in education. We should have AI, learning to use AI as something in our curriculum across the board as soon as possible. Secondly, recommendation 16 is important and is an issue that teachers are raising with the Government at this point. There is lots more to talk about in a future debate. I have enjoyed listening to today's debate, but there has always got to be a little bit of balance inserted back into it. The cabinet secretary groans, and I know that she will not want to listen to me, but she has committed to listening more widely. I have spoken many times in this chamber on this subject and drawn on the words of Lindsay Paterson, but I think that it would be wrong for his voice to be absent from this debate today. I was going to start with a couple of quotes from setting out his thoughts on the Hayward review. He says that the review ought to be challenged, rigorously and radically, because it is deeply disappointing. Its methods were flawed and its recommendations were vapid. It has a few good ideas, but they are not worked out in any detail and their practicality is doubtful. Implementing what is proposed would perpetuate the harm already inflicted by the implementation of curriculum for excellence, that two-decade-old reform that the present review extols is admirable. I am happy to acknowledge that there are good things in the review, and it is a good opportunity for a conversation around how we move forward. However, I share concerns about how rigorous it has been around its starting point and the evidence base that it has built on. I worry that a number of members have touched on it. There has not been enough consideration of how those changes will impact on our most deprived communities on young people who face the biggest challenges and barriers to education. Lots of the things sound good in the abstract when we talk about them here in this chamber, but, like some other members, I worry about the personal pathway. I worry about what that means for young people in my constituency who do not have, after school clubs, access to exciting national programmes. Things like Duke of Edinburgh are not achievable or attainable for all young people at the moment. There are schools in my constituency where there are young people who would love to continue playing a musical instrument, but that opportunity and chance is not there for them and not properly supported. I think that there are many young people who, again, have the aptitude and the ability to take on an interdisciplinary project, but maybe not at 15 and maybe not from the starting point that they are at. I am very grateful to Oliver Mundell to give way, and I am conscious of the time constraint. Does he agree with me that that could potentially be where youth work can feed in exceptionally well to those groups of people and provide the support that they may not otherwise get? I acknowledge that point, but if you look at youth work services in my own patch, which are award-winning, very good, and I have huge admiration, they do not have the resource to deliver that kind of support. I also do question whether it is a substitute for the teaching and academic support that young people deserve, because they would flourish if that was there, too. I am concerned that in some schools, in some parts of the country and in some quarters of our society, we say that it is okay for some people to opt out of qualifications and opt out of that formal academic learning, despite the fact that they have the ability and the desire to take it forward. We say that those other things are the things for you. Do not worry that your child is a young person and that you do not have the qualifications that you need to follow your dreams. We have found some other things that can go on part of your qualification to make up for it, so we have to be very careful that we get the balance right and that we do not allow that to be a chance to write people off. I call Clare Baker to be followed by Karen Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. While this debate focuses on the qualifications and assessment review, it is impossible to look at that in isolation. Reducing teacher numbers, increasing instances of violence and aggression, a drop in our PISA scores, declining school attendance and the pandemic that I was highlighted by Fulton MacGregor, the impact of that. Those are just some of the challenges in education that provide the context for the debate. Reform to Scottish education needs to begin with addressing the outstanding issues. Our young people deserve an education system that supports them to reach their full potential. Our teachers and school staff deserve an education system that recognises and values their dedication and hard work. The recommendations of the Hayward review, which have been broadly agreed with, at this point lack the detail to make them workable. Without that detail, it is difficult to see them as achievable. Can there be any confidence in the sector that they will go ahead when we have seen review upon review over recent years without the Scottish Government enacting the form required? Looking at the findings of the school and college teacher consultation and the recommendations, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that there is such a range of issues that were deemed a priority by respondents such as funding, qualifications assessment, clarity around reforms, that there was little consensus on what the overall priority should be. Many respondents pointed to the importance of adequate and sustained funding. The success of any reform will be dependent on sufficient and long-term funding for staff and resources to deliver the proposed changes, and there are concerns that funding will be insufficient. Concerns that reflect the challenges of workload, resourcing and support that are affecting our schools, teachers and pupils right now. We need to see adequate and sustained funding to increase teaching and support staff, to address workload and to support pupils with ASN to improve resources for subjects and schools, some of which the cabinet secretary and I heard from pupils at Newcastle primary school on Monday this week. Without delivering the workforce support that will allow the professional teaching and learning development that is required for those reforms, they will not be achieved. The recommendations can be welcomed, but we also need them to be workable. A recurring theme in the responses was that they are too vague. There needs to be clarity on how assessment will be standardised if early stage examinations are reduced, and whether that will mean more work for individual teachers. There is potential here to develop online submission methods that could be used by pupils and teachers that could present savings in terms of resources and assessment costs, as it removes some of the need for physical locations for verification processes. However, who will be responsible for project learning and will there be national resources? Demonstrating commitment or achievement in extracurricular activities is something that employers recognise, but it present can be difficult to present to colleges or universities if you are not skilled at writing a personal statement. There are also challenges in ensuring those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not further disadvantaged, which many MSPs have raised this afternoon when it comes to project learning potential, which will require investment in delivering opportunities for extracurricular activities and the ability to record personal achievements. We know that some opportunities that previously existed, such as groups with an environmental focus, have been lost in some schools as a result of funding pressures, and a lack of scope within the school staff for the additional work that is required. The recommendation for priority of esteem between academic, vocational, professional and technical qualifications is to be welcomed, but it will bring additional resourcing challenges that need to be recognised. In our schools right now, practical subjects like home economics are struggling to provide necessary resources for pupils, and in some schools are then being dropped as a subject for cost reasons. There are technology departments being told in January that there is no money left in the budget until the next financial year, delivering those courses for pupils means properly resourcing them in all parts of the country. Since 2016, the Scottish Government has commissioned a series of reviews on various aspects of Scotland's education system, but it has neglected to act on them. The outcomes of the Haybridge review present an opportunity for change, but we need more detail in terms of how they would work in practice. As the Scottish Government is serious about taking them forward, it must, as its first step, address the current and significant challenges that our schools, pupils, teachers and staff face. I welcome the opportunity to be able to speak to it. It is our future report today, because I spend so much time thinking about the future of my children and grandchildren, all eight of whom have made their way or currently making their way through the Scottish education system. This is a fully comprehensive report spanning 152 pages, but I wish to focus my remarks on the elements that strike a personal chord with me, but which I know will also strike a chord with so many families across Scotland with whom I have had the privilege of working with throughout my time in politics. The points that I wish to focus on are about how we can better support children and young people who have neurodiverse conditions, not just to get by, but to fully participate and thrive on their educational journeys. Recommendation 1, change qualifications and assessment in the senior phase in Scotland, is very welcome. I note that the report notes that many learners, spoken to as part of this review, reported high levels of stress caused by the overt focus on examinations. I also agree with the report that change must be carefully planned and resourced. We know that stress and anxiety can often be one of the major aspects of having a neurodivergent condition. Supporting neurodivergent children in our education system demands a holistic and inclusive approach that not only recognises their unique ways of learning and interacting with the world, but also recognises their unique ways of showing and understanding of their learning. It is not about creating environments where their neurodiversity is not seen as a barrier, it is about creating environments where their neurodiversity is seen, not seen as a barrier to success, but as a valuable perspective that enriches our whole system. Allowing for more long-term overviews of children and young people's educational process, progress, in my view, will result in a fairer picture of their progress. By fostering that inclusive approach, we can ensure that our education system is not merely inclusive by design but empowering in practice. Allowing neurodivergent children to flourish academically and socially without the pressure of what is to come, assessments could be immersive and integrated into learning. Recommendation 7 states that all learners should be offered a broad range of courses, including academic, vocational, professional and technical courses. Ensuring that our children and young people are reaching their full potential and being able to do what they need to do to ensure that their needs are met during my many interactions with children over the years and young people from being a mother and a grandmother. I was a young women leader for a few years and also ran a local play group. What is obvious when interacting with wide ranges and ages of young children from many different aspects of life and demographics, for example, is that one is no more less worthy than the other when showing abilities in either academia or vocational talents. I welcome the reports and marks on parity of esteem for each pathway of learning. On that point, I look forward next week to visiting local businesses in my constituency of Bampshire and Bucking Coast as part of Scottish apprenticeship week. Those businesses are supporting many of our local young people through the valuable learning opportunity of apprenticeships. In conclusion, the aim should be for us to have young people leaving our education system in Scotland provided with tools to help them to navigate their personal and professional lives. More importantly, and this is vital, that they can look back on an experience that has had a positive impact on their lives. To do that, we must ensure that, when building an education system or reforming one, that it should not be built to be modified but built in an inclusive way from the foundations up. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. It has been a fascinating afternoon of debate, and it is a great pleasure, as always, to follow Karen Adam and her incredibly strong advocacy for our neurodivergent young people. If we can get it right for them, we will get it right for all of our young people. The processes that work best with our neurodivergent children are also the processes that allow children who are struggling with a strategy or a skill to develop it much quicker than just being lectured at from the front of the class, which happens so rarely now, but it is one of those standards that we should seek to look for that the classrooms are welcoming to all of the young people who attend. We know from the rising ASN numbers of children that this is an increasing dynamic that our classrooms face and our teachers face, and indeed other pupils face on a day-to-day basis. I was going to list the reports, but Liam Kerr did that, so I'll make reference to his report. It does allow me to nip in with the International Council of Education Advisors, which I know we will anticipate the response to their most recent report from the Government in the near future, but it is worth pointing out their quote that the time for commissioning reviews is now over, which has been recognised, I think, across this chamber, and that there is a strong consensus about the need for action, but the specifics remain to be determined. We are concerned that the momentum of change might not match the appetite for change within the system, and indeed I look forward to the responses to the six strategic areas, because although come decision time we may have a disagreement with regard to votes, and perhaps this was a debate without a motion or a very short motion may have been an interesting strategy to pursue with this chamber. I think we have seen across this chamber ideas come forward, a great deal of consensus, which I know the Government can build on, but also areas of concern, because looking at the specific report that this afternoon's debate was about, it is one jigsaw piece in that one part of the sowing in the tapestry of education that was used by one of the members, and I think it is important that a number of contributions have indicated the need to have a discussion about what is the vision that sits behind us, and I think the Cabinet Secretary better than most will recall the rollout of curriculum for excellence, where we went from a period of time of enormous enthusiasm amongst the education profession for change. They saw this as one of the great opportunities, but for whatever reason systems that sit around our education just kept battering at it, just kept knocking it, just kept asking it to shift slightly so that some of the real strengths of it that I think Ross Greer highlighted, some of the great strengths of curriculum for excellence had started to be lost. A number of members have commented on the shortage of time this afternoon. I think it's fitting that we have debates in this chamber where people struggle to get in and to contribute, because it shows the importance of what we are talking about. I think Willie Rennie's contribution about highlighting the SCQF framework that could be used more widely also speaks to the diploma and whether we have an opportunity, which we didn't have with curriculum for excellence, to redraw the language of how we assess, how we allow young people to show their ability. I think it was a fascinating contribution, particularly from Ivan McKee, about the importance of that relationship that business should have and that perception that still exists rightly or wrongly about a misunderstanding between what the two different areas demand of each other. I think that this is an opportunity to bring those together. I think that Ivan McKee's contribution about the meta-learning and the ability of project learning to facilitate that is very interesting. I think that ties in with the report and ties in with the demand of the tension between the meta-skills and the personal knowledge that we need. Again, something that has been a tension within curriculum for excellence almost since day one, but will allow us to look and address that. I think that we have the opportunity to do it. I think that Alex Rowley's contribution again about GERFEC and who is GERFEC applying to and the fact that it boils down to resource also speaks to the tension between the change that we need to see in the short term, which it does require resource, sitting in this vision for the long term and that we shouldn't take steps in the short term that damage our long term vision, but without that vision we are really challenged to do that. I'd like to thank Bill Kidd for his contribution with regard to youth work because it did save me two more paragraphs of my speech. Because of the importance, as I intervened on, the importance and indeed the role that youth work should play towards some of our young people, particularly in the short term in relation to those that are challenged with their engagement, and I would echo his call to explore this further. I think that Ross Greer's contribution was fascinating because we have attention about whether or not we trust teachers. I think that when we had Covid we had insight into what the potential of teacher assessment came here with a number of contributions about the insurance that perhaps people outside of the education environment need on that, but we also have to remember, and this again speaks to the challenge that CFE had, that strange piece of AI that suddenly reduced certain young people's grades depending on their postcode. An information because I know time is tight. I'd like to thank Oliver Mundell. I think he was concerned that he was going to change the tone of the debate this afternoon but I think to be fair he hasn't. I think he raised very important issues and there is a tension between academic achievement and actually the young people and I think one of the things that this parliament can do is not to instruct but indeed to debate what that tension should be. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer. Thank you and I call on Ross McCall up to seven minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I thank every member who contributed to the debate this afternoon. It's a privilege to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, not least because it's a rare occurrence to be debating the substance when it comes to education of our young people and I do agree with Willie Rennie and Ross Greer that our time today is unfortunately just a little too short. As my colleagues have highlighted we understand the need for reform and I think Sue Webber is absolutely right that when it comes to our education system in Scotland we need to evolve and adapt at pace. We want to see urgent action to reverse the decline of Scottish education instead of ditherings and delays but it's essential that the needs of pupils are prioritised throughout this process and there has been too long a delay with review after review and it's our pupils that are let down all too often. The need for a varied education offer and general acceptance that no one is a singular route to success is a personal one for me. I think I've mentioned before that I didn't leave school to go to university, that route wasn't right for me and at school I find the whole process of learning in an overtly structured way very difficult. I had an aptitude towards function and discussion so a positive destination for me was in management training scheme within what we called at that point in the 1980s big business so I started at House of Fraser stores. So it's been very interesting to listen to the debate this afternoon and I'd like to begin by highlighting a couple of contributions from members across the chamber that I think are worth a particular note. Pam Duncan Glancy, I have to tell you straight up I do like a jigsaw analogy so thank you for that but you also mentioned with Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie the amount of reviews that we have had and how important it is that they all actually work together to bring forward a really joined up strategy so that we can catch any duplication as was mentioned by my colleague Liam Kerr. Also Pam Duncan Glancy mentioned the difficulty the current system has for ASN students and that move forward with reform is now needed sooner rather than later and I agree wholeheartedly with that. I also accept the cabinet secretary's comments to move to continuous assessment can't add to teacher workload I accept that but we must improve the outcomes for young people and I'll highlight that comment. Willie Rennie is right to comment that expectations in the country are out there that we need to move forward and these expectations have to be met and he is also right to mention misbehaviour in our classrooms. Consequences I would say rather than discipline are what we are needing and that's something that we've been calling for on these benches for some time. Ivan McKee I think is very right to mention the important link to business growth and entrepreneurship and that's something I'm also going to comment on and I'm also going to highlight the comments from Oliver Mundell because it is right from our colleague to raise concerns because that's the whole point of debate and how we make changes in this place that actually work for everyone. Presiding Officer I know I have a short amount of time but I would like to finish by raising the following points. When Professor Hayward supported by an independent review group including learners, teachers, employers, universities and colleges published the report back in June last year I have to be honest I assumed that there was a level of buy-in to the recommendations given the breadth of the review group that I was actually surprised yesterday to read the level of disagreement to some of the proposals. The one that's a classic example is the Scottish Diploma for Achievement. 23.5% approval but 38.2% disapproval of that recommendation. Personal pathway had 23.5% approval but 38.6% disapproval and project learning 16.8% approval but 44% disapproval. With 57.6% of respondents disagreeing with the proposal to reduce examinations it highlights to me a worrying situation that perhaps the teachers that have to implement the changes and know the actual current position in our classrooms regarding getting a proper blend of educational options for our children and young people are not as comfortable with the recommendations that the independent review has highlighted. I note that the motion calls for a need to make significant progress. It agrees that Reeves reforms must be taken forward with young people and teachers and that changes clearly are understood by parents, carers and employers for further and higher education institutions. Given that assurance in the Government's motion, I think that it's imperative that concerns for almost 10,000 teachers and people working in the education process are taken into consideration. I would urge the Scottish Government to listen to those trusted professionals working in Scotland schools on the adoption of any proposed new approaches. I would also like to mention the need for business contributions as a matter of urgency as I say it was already mentioned. It's so important that changes towards modular courses and practical education within our schools has to ensure that it opens doors for onward employment and positive destinations rather than sending children and young people down an educational cul-de-sac. Too many times we find that employers report resort back to examination results or further education certificates and degrees because they highlight an ability to work through a problem. A tenacity of character and a sustained work ethic that is essential for successful employment, but it's not the only qualities admired by businesses. If we have the opportunity to truly reform, then including employers with the same gravitas as our colleges and university sectors, we will certainly find a greater buy-in and a more positive move towards the essential parity of esteem that so many of the teachers agreed with. I would really like to know more about the next steps. The final page of the report mentions the debate today and I accept that, but we don't have a lot of detail and I am really looking forward to the formal response when it comes on how the Government's plans to take forward these reviews and I know that that is coming, but in particular this review considering the percentage of teachers that are not in agreement with the initial recommendations, I think that has to be part of the way forward. Like so many things, how implementation progresses is paramount to success, so it's time for action. Our children, young people, employers, colleges and universities deserve nothing less. I call on Jenny Gilruth to wind up up to nine minutes, cabinet secretary. A key theme in this afternoon's debate has been time and I recognise that this afternoon's debate has been truncated because of other parliamentary business, so I want to first of all recognise that and put on the record my commitment to come back to Parliament to have a further, fuller debate perhaps after the publication of the Government's formal response to the review as was outlined previously. I also want to commit to engage with the opposition more generally outwith the chamber, with my officials, as we did last week because I think that will help to inform the process as we move forward. I think that we do have a great deal of consensus in the Parliament on education reform to Martin Whitfield's point and I'm really keen to solidify that opportunity more formally and more regularly. He also spoke about the tensions of course with the introduction of curriculum for excellence, I hope that he still has a copy of his green folder as I do, but I well understand some of the challenge that inherently is attached to educational reform and I think that we need to be mindful of the potential pitfalls to that end as I outlined in my opening contribution today. I want to respond to some of the comments from members and what I thought was a really positive and helpful debate. At times, undoubtedly, there was challenge. I have to say that I really welcome the challenge from Oliver Mundell. I agree with many of the points that he made in relation to project-based learning but also in broader achievement and how on earth that might be accredited in the future. I think that we need to be really mindful in relation to equity issues and that has been a challenge. I think that it was discussed by the group in the approach that has been taken by Professor Hayward throughout the review. Liam Kerr rightly notes, though, that there is room for different views within relation to the recommendations. He spoke about the Government's survey and I think that it's important to reflect the range of different views that are out there. That challenge, I think, from the profession has been reflected to us because the profession will always think about the practicalities of enacting reform and what it means in their classrooms. We need to ensure that our teachers are part of this process but we also need to listen to them, which is exactly why, Presiding Officer, I built in this additionality to give teachers the opportunity to contribute and to us, for us in Government, to hear their views and better reflect that in the formal response. Mr Kerr touched on apprenticeships in his region. I'd be more than happy to engage on a visit with him if that was the offer to look at the work that has been done by DYW in his area or, indeed, Mr Day may wish to take up that kind of offer. He also spoke, I think, about some of the inequity issues that were touched on by Oliver Mundell and I do think that we need to be mindful in that approach, particularly in relation to the personal pathway element. Pam Duncan Glancy spoke about the compelling case for change. I suppose that I hear two views on that. I hear one really strong compelling case for change and I hear another view from the teaching profession in the survey that we published yesterday, which is to be mindful of the current challenge in the system. Those two things need to be balanced, however. I think that we have built in that additionality in the previous year and now is the time to move forward. Ms Duncan Glancy also spoke of the importance in relation to splitting the inspectorate function from Education Scotland and, of course, I will bring forward legislation to that end later this year on that specific point. I do think, though, to Willie Rennie's points in relation to the national agencies, that there is a real opportunity to ensure that Education Scotland works better and works closely alongside the teaching profession to provide that support where it is needed. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. Forgive me, you should move on slightly to Willie Rennie's point. On the splitting of the functions, does the cabinet secretary also accept that it is important to split the accreditation and awarding function from the new qualifications body? I think that Ms Duncan Glancy knows that the Government does not support that approach, and I think that that has been outlined in our approach thus far. However, I look forward to engaging with her on the substantive of the legislation when that comes forward in due course. I was reflecting recently on the role of school in that regard, more generally, post Covid and evidence from the Centre for Social Justice, which talks to the fraying link between home and school post Covid. I think that it is important that we reset that relationship with the school and our parents, particularly in relation to the reform of the qualifications system. There was a discussion around the range of different qualifications in Ms Duncan Glancy's contribution, too. The point that I was making in my initial remarks was that the plethora of different qualifications that currently exist in the senior phase can be confusing for many young people. We need to have a decluttering of that offer and a rationalisation, which is one of the key recommendations from Professor Hayward's review, to ensure that our young people can see those pathways more clearly and identify opportunities accordingly. Willy Rennie spoke undoubtedly about the pressure in the system at the current time, which I absolutely accept. I agree with him that the status quo cannot hold. I think that this last year has been important to capture teacher views and to have that contrasting view in relation to some of the recommendations. The words that I used in the chamber before Christmas were that the status quo cannot hold. That was in relation to the challenge presented to the Government in relation to the PISA statistics, but I think that more generally we need to now move forward. It was interesting to hear Mr Rennie's views regarding the 222 model. It has taken me back to my time on the Education Committee in the previous Parliament, where we debated this very issue at length with Ms Duncan Glancy's predecessor, who I think might have had a different view. Mr Mundell might remember some of those conversations, too, about subject choice. What that really talks through are the practicalities of how you timetable curriculum change. We need to be mindful of what that means for our teachers. I think that that is why there is a degree of hesitance in the profession at the current time, because they are always thinking about how those things will work in practice in the classroom. Does she think that the inconsistency from one school to another, different local authorities on that split, is adding to the difficulties of making sure that we raise standards throughout? I think that, undoubtedly, there are different approaches. One of the key strengths of curriculum for excellence was that it was meant to be a system that allowed for local decision making in local schools. However, if he is asking for the Government to give more of a direction on how many subjects the schools should teach, then perhaps we should have a further debate on that issue. I think more generally that we need to reflect that there are inequities across the system at the current time in terms of those entitlements. The language of entitlements that Professor Hayward uses in the report is a really interesting one, because we know that there are variants across the system at the current time. Perhaps we need to give more firm guidance in that. I do not think that it would be my role as Cabinet Secretary to provide that direction to schools, but I think that we need to think about how Education Scotland could help to support a more equal system across the board, because that is fundamentally about the entitlements of our young people and ensuring that they all have access to the full suite of qualifications that Pam Duncan Glancy spoke to. I am conscious of time. Ivan McKee spoke about the importance of meta-skills and knowledge for employers. I think that that was touched on by a number of other members this afternoon. That has been one of the really key drivers behind curriculum improvement to ensure that the role of knowledge is better reflected. Although I might think that I do not listen to Lindsay Patterson, I agree more broadly with him on the point in relation to knowledge within the curriculum, which is why we are taking forward this work on curriculum improvement. I think that more generally, the points that were made by Ross McCall in relation to the involvement of business and how we can use business expertise to help to inform our educational offer are really important. Business, as we heard from Mr McKee, has a key role to play in relation to qualification reform. It will have many views in relation to our current offer. I know that. That is why, of course, we need to have a coherent offer, and that has been part of some of the key messages coming from this afternoon's debate. Ross Greer cuts really to the heart of the challenge in relation to continuous assessment and high-stakes examinations, which we continue to have a reliance on in Scotland at the current time, unlike many other countries, I should say so. We heard from Karen Adam about the stress that can create for our young people, but we should also reflect on the stress that it creates for our teachers. I mentioned in my initial contribution the reintroduction of some of the qualification requirements this year. I know that, at the current time, we are creating pressure in the system, which is why I have asked the SQA to review those arrangements and to be mindful of those arrangements this year, but also to take that into consideration in relation to the grading approach that will be used in this year's examinations. I hear the challenge from Mr Mundell and others about specifically project-based learning and those programmes of learning, and I am very live to those issues. However, I have outlined today where we are able to make progress and where we have been able to move forward at pace, and that is really specifically in relation to the qualifications themselves, which I think is important and allows us to identify opportunities while working with the profession. The pandemic undoubtedly was an extraordinary time in all of our lives. Our children lived through that period and they also had their education turned upside down. Our teachers stepped up, moving at pace to respond to a global emergency. Now is the time, Presiding Officer, to recast our educational offer, to ensure its fit for purpose for Scotland's children and young people, to best equip them for life after school or whichever pathway they see fit to follow. That concludes the debate on recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of bureau motion 12320, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12320 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on a stage 1 extension. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12321 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 12322 to 12324 on approval of SSIs. All three moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time, and there are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 12310, in the name of Tom Arthur, on local government finance Scotland order 2024, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore, will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.