 Good morning, and can I welcome everybody to the third meeting of the Public Audit Committee in this session of Parliament? Can I begin by reminding everybody about the Parliament's rules on social distancing and also the requirement to wear face masks if you are moving around the room or entering or leaving the room? The first item on our agenda is to agree to take items 3 and 4 in private. Is that agreed? Thank you. The main purpose of this morning's session is to look at the report that was brought out in March of this year jointly by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, a section 23 report that looked at improving outcomes for young people through school education. I am delighted once again to welcome the Auditor General, who is here with us in person this morning. There are also three of his colleagues who worked on the report, who are joining us via video link. Anthony Clark, who is the Interim Director of Performance Audit and Best Value. Tricia Meldrum, who is a Senior Audit Manager and Zoe Maguire, who is a Senior Auditor in performance audit and best value. Welcome to all four of you. We have got quite a number of questions to put this morning, but before we do that, Auditor General, I wonder whether you could give us a brief introductory statement. Thank you, convener. Good morning, members. Today, I bring to the committee our report on improving outcomes through school education. The report reflects the findings of our work up to the start of the pandemic in March 2020, which we supplemented with additional audit work last year to report on the impact of Covid-19 upon school education. Our report was published in March 2021, and our findings predate both the publication of the OECD review of curriculum for excellence in June of this year and the Scottish Government's response to its findings. In presenting the report, I, of course, wish to acknowledge the commitment and efforts of those working in education, as well as those of our children and young people, their parents and carers during this most challenging time. Confer, it is important as they are, that Scotland's exam system is about more than exam results. Education policy and the curriculum reflect the importance of different pathways and wider outcomes, such as improving health and wellbeing. Children and young people have access to more opportunities and increasingly achieve more of the wider awards and qualifications available to them than they did in 2014, when we last reported on this topic. The Scottish Government's two priorities for school education are to raise attainment for all and to close the poverty-related attainment gap. Nationally exam performance and other attainment measures have improved since 2013-14, but the rate of improvement up to 2018-19 has been inconsistent across different measures. There is wide variation in performance across the country, with evidence of worsening performance on some measures in some councils. We recognise the complexity of closing the poverty-related attainment gap, but it remains and progress towards it falls short of the Scottish Government's aims. Improvement needs to happen faster and more consistently across Scotland to address the inequalities that exist before Covid-19 and have increased as a result. There is a lack of data to address some wider measures of outcomes that are priorities such as wellbeing. Between 2013-14 and 2018-19, funding on school education increased more than for other council services. Most of the real terms increases in councils' education spending came from the attainment Scotland fund. The Scottish Government has now committed to spending a further £1 billion in this parliamentary session on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Children and young people's learning, wellbeing and economic circumstances have been adversely affected by Covid-19, with those living in the most challenging circumstances hit hardest. Regardless of the nature of the structural changes in education that come from the Government's response to the OECD review, it should focus on building co-ordination and good collaboration that help to deliver a rapid improvement in outcomes across the country. As always, my colleagues and I will be delighted to answer the committee's questions this morning. Thank you very much indeed, Auditor General. I'd like to begin because this week you've made an important statement in a blog that reflects on 10 years since the Christie commission was produced. If you don't mind me quoting you because I think it's important that these are on the record, you warned that the country in your words remains riven by inequalities, but you also said that it remains the case that there is a major implementation gap, a major implementation gap between policy ambitions and delivery on the ground. With reference to this morning's inquiry, you said that progress on closing the poverty-related attainment gap between the most and least-deprived school pupils had been limited. That's a very powerful statement of how you see things. I wonder whether you want to reflect on that and perhaps outline for us what you think needs to change so that that huge, major implementation gap that you spoke about can be closed. Thank you very much, convener. I'll maybe start, actually, but I'll perhaps invite Anthony Clark to come in as well just about some of the wider reflections that we want to do across our work in its entirety. Yes, I took the opportunity this week in a blog to reflect some of the progress that Scotland had made 10 years on from the Christie commission and its drive to deliver improved outcomes for Scotland, focusing on preventative spend and better collaboration across our public services. We make reference in that blog to the inequalities that exist across the country and draw on aspects of the report findings that we have before the committee today. In particular, a number of themes in that blog that we touched on as to reflecting on why Christie hadn't delivered its stated ambitions and hypothesised aspects of that may be due to the austerity that the country faced after the financial crisis, the lack of incentives for leaders, but also broadening that out to look at. We, in many ways, perform to what we're being asked to measure against as being one of the inhibitors for delivering change and delivering progress. Convener, we also talk about the lack of robust data and milestones. Again, it's not a new theme for Audit Scotland and it's reporting our 2018 report on planning for outcomes. Again, emphasise the importance of, when policy implementation, to set clear milestones, have the right data so that scrutineers, those charged with delivering the implementation of policy, can track, monitor, tweak, adjust towards progress. One of our key findings in today's report is that there's a lack of robust data to measure against the broader aspects of Scottish education system. There's plenty of data, and perhaps, as we suggest in the report, an overt focus on attainment levels within schools, in respect of exam results, but not that broader sense that it's accepted that school is a bit more than just exam results. We sought today's report and the blog to assist in that conversation of refocusing what we need to do as a country to ultimately achieve that outcome of better outcomes, tackling inequality and broadening opportunity. I hope that that's a reasonable reflection, convener, but I'm sure that Anthony will have a few words to say to supplement mine. Thank you very much, Auditor General, and good morning, convener and committee. I think that I've broadly agreed with what the Auditor General was saying. It seems to us that the Scottish Government and councils now need to focus on addressing the impact of Covid-19 in terms of disadvantaged groups. It's very clear that, as the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government have started to plan for education recovery, they've been very committed to addressing inequality at the heart of what they're doing. That will be difficult, though, and it will require concerted effort across a number of different fronts. Firstly, there's a role of education authorities in providing leadership, scrutiny and challenge—the Auditor General has already mentioned that. There's an important role for the regional improvement collaboratives to work with education authorities and schools to gather data, use data and understand what's making a difference in improving outcomes. The Scottish Government also has an important leadership role. That is something that will involve effort by everybody over an extended period of time. As a report made clear, addressing inequalities, including attainment gap, is not something that can happen quickly, but I think that if people do the things that we see in our report, we could hope to see steady progress over time that will address the long-standing challenge. Thank you, Mr Clark and Auditor General. One of the things that is mentioned in the report, which Mr Boyle referred to earlier on, is the question of data. If I read paragraph 25 of the report, it seems to me to put it very starkly when it says that, in my quote, the Scottish Government's national aim is to improve outcomes for all, but it has not set out by how much or when. From an auditing's perspective, that sounds like quite a major flaw, doesn't it? Indeed, convener, that's one of the main conclusions and recommendations that we make in the report. In order to deliver across the aims of curriculum for excellence and the national improvement framework, there has to be a consistent application of robust data so that, for all the reasons that we set out in the report, and I've touched on already this morning, to have effective milestones that allow policy makers to assess and monitor progress and take any remedial action as necessary is a key part of it. It has to be built upon robust data across not just one, but all four aspects of the intentions of the curriculum. We will return to some of those things during the course of this morning's session. The report, as you stated at the beginning, takes us up to January 2021. Obviously, quite a lot has happened since that time. I wonder whether you have been able to gather any more information about where things now are, and whether you have been able to understand whether some of the actions that were recommended in your report, for example, have been followed up at a central and local government level? I will maybe start, convener, and I will invite Tricia Meldrum to come in and say a little bit more about the updated data. One of the points that, if I say first of all, is that my introductory remarks are not just about exams, but in light of the disruption caused by Covid, we now have two years of data gaps, based on the comparable arrangements that existed with SQA assessments. As many others have tracked the implications of some of the teacher assessment-led aspects of data—I can say a bit more about that—but more widely, in terms of Government's response, Education Scotland's response and local authorities' response, which we make recommendations to all three parties in the report. As you would expect, convener, we clear the report and we make recommendations, and it is something that we will continue to follow up on through our work in the future to assess progress. As you mentioned, however, the fact that there is potentially such significant change pending to the Scottish education system, I think that we will want to take stock to make sure that our recommendations, which we think will hold the test of time, review who will be the best place to implement those recommendations, and we will do that through the course of our work and report back to the committee as necessary. However, Tricia can say a little bit more about what we have seen of the more recent data since we published. Thank you. Tricia Meldrum, can I invite you to address us? Is your microphone on or off, Tricia? Is it possible to put the microphone on from this end? I think that I have done it from my end. Excellent. You are with us. Tricia Meldrum, come in. Would you like to supplement what the Auditor General has said? Yes. In relation to the updated data, there has obviously been two sets of assessments since then. Two lots of results that have come out in August time. What we have seen is quite a different picture to what we have reported in the report. The method of assessment has obviously been different in relation to that being largely based on teachers' assessment and some of the testing that went on this year to inform the teachers' assessment. We see quite a different picture in terms of the data, in terms of quite large improvements in relation to the past rate compared to previous years and also the narrowing of the attainment gap as well. Obviously, it is difficult to compare what has happened in the last two years with what has happened previously. One of the other key measures in the national improvement framework and one of the key outcomes that the Scottish Government is seeking to address is around participation. That being around the status of 16 to 19-year-olds, are they in education, are they in further higher education, are they in work training, etc. Again, participation rates have improved over the last couple of years. We have seen a reduction in the number of people who are unknown, which is a good thing as well. Previously, there were a number of 16 to 19-year-olds where the data was not able to track them, to know what their destination was. That has reduced and we are seeing that more young people are in a positive destination. A few things in relation to the data there. Obviously, in relation to wider progress against our recommendations, we are continuing to talk to the Scottish Government, but that is a bit of an update on where the data is sitting. Before I widen the question out, there was just one other thing that I wanted to come back to, which was mentioned in the opening presentation. That is the OECD report, which came out in June of this year, so just a couple of months after your own report was produced. In the briefing note for today's committee meeting, you say that there are some common themes between the conclusions that you arrived at and the conclusions and recommendations made by the OECD. I wonder whether it would be useful for us to hear from you what those common themes are and whether there are clear recommendations that come from those common themes that would do what the report says that we need to do and what we are all agreed on, which is about improving outcomes, in a broader sense, for young people through school education. I think that our assessment of the comparability of our own report to that of the OECD is that there are consistencies and synergies between the two reports. I will point to the theme that we have explored a little bit already this morning about that. The quality of data across all the pillars of the Scottish education system exists, and the need for that to improve. We have touched on the fact that the exam system—I will come back to that in a moment—is very data-led, but that is not replicated on the other aims of Scottish education. We see that in both reports. We have also acknowledged the OECD report, which talks about the wider aims of curriculum for excellence, embedding in the broad general education element of the curriculum, but then not reflecting into the senior phase. We also see that coming through in the more recent updated OECD report, too. From our perspective, it is a consistent thread. Through that report, we are earlier reporting on planning for outcomes and the need for improved planning data to deliver outcomes most effectively. As others, we await the full confirmation of the Government's plans and what that means for the structure of the Scottish education system, but I might refer back to the comment that I made in my introductory remarks that, regardless of whatever structure is implemented in the Scottish education system, it does not lose sight of the overall objective of delivering better outcomes for Scotland's children and young people, particularly as we have seen how badly affected our most deprived communities have been over the course of the pandemic. I want to start with Willie Coffey. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning again, Minister General. I wonder if I could just ask you to tell us a little bit more about the response to Covid and the part that remote learning and digital technology played in that. I think that your message is very complementary in recognising that there was a strong foundation there already, but could you give us your perspective on how well that worked? Morning, Mr Coffey. I am happy to do that. I again invite colleagues to supplement my response. I think that Zoe McGuire is probably the best place to come in, just to talk about the nature of the leadership arrangements and the Covid response. There is one of the findings in our report that the Scottish education system worked well and collaboratively both before the pandemic and in the response from the education system during the course of the pandemic, in extremely challenging circumstances, as we all lived through and experienced in many different sectors. We make reference to the work of the Covid education recovery group, the representation from many different parties within that group, and the 10 work streams that were placed in it. We also refer to the allocation of resources to public bodies, to take steps to ensure that online learning, as many of us recall, was made available to Scotland's children and young people and the allocation of 50,000 devices that were placed by December last year, which, of course, is many months after the pandemic started, but it is also fair to recognise that, although inevitably there would have been digital exclusion for some of Scotland's children and young people and hardship-experienced, the provision of such a complex process is a competitive market. Businesses, people switching to home working overnight, organisations across the country trying to access a limited supply of digital devices, and education providers trying to do likewise, all led to difficult circumstances. Overall, it is fair to say that we think that the system worked well in very challenging circumstances to deliver it. That would be my assessment, Mr Coffey, but I am sure that Zoey can give us a little bit more detail over and above what we say in the report. Thank you very much. With the setting up of the Covid education recovery group relatively quickly, it was a really good thing, and it really acted as an advisory group and helped to pull together specific things around specific work streams, so workforce, those with more complex learning needs, and it really helped to pull things together and provide really good advice in the system. We saw that happen quickly, although I think that the later one in the setting up of the group was a youth panel that was put in place around October last year, so that was put in place a little bit later. As the Auditor General said, the distribution of remote devices happened relatively quickly and under some difficult circumstances, but it was very much targeted to those who initially needed them for issues of deprivation and things like that. I hope that is helpful. Did you pick up any disproportionate impact on young people who are perhaps learning from school, meaning the device? From home, I should say that the device is one thing, isn't it, to have a device handy, but the data connection speed from your house is entirely another one. We have all had various experiences of that, even in the parliaments. Did you pick up on any issues there that we might want to learn a few lessons from if something like that should happen again? Our ability to work and learn from home is, of course, based on our home circumstances, and those are unique to ourselves. One factor is the availability of a device to allow us to access learning. The other aspect will be the ability, in this context, of the school to be able to provide lessons, to set work and so forth. Then, back in the home environment, whether it is broadband, whether there is a space to work, whether there is parental care or support, to support learning are all factors. As we mentioned in the report that we conducted some focus groups—again, the team can say a little bit more about this in a moment—we also drew on survey results that reflected young people's experiences of home learning. It is safe to say that young people found that challenging. There are, in particular, some groups—we might reference in the report to girls finding that harder than boys. That context of this being a very challenging environment and a fluid environment is well uncertainty that all of it contributed to a really difficult context. I will ask Zoe again to come in and say a little bit more about the survey nature in our focus group and the children and young people that we spoke to and how they conveyed their experiences. That is a very interesting point to pick up around connectivity. I think that that was definitely initially found. It is not just about the device, it is about having the activity. To be honest, having the space within your home to be able to do that work because of circumstances around your family and home situation might make it difficult for young people. That is what we are hearing in terms of having a desk to work at or what a space is. There are people in the house and things and distractions like that. We definitely found, through some of the survey results and through some of our own talking to children and young people, that there was a lot of anxieties around not knowing what was going to happen around what was going to happen around exams. We definitely heard a fair bit around that anxiety. Although, to counter that, it was not a blanket situation for all children and young people. We are just here of some young people who actually thrived and quite enjoyed that environment and were able to spend a bit more time with their families. That very much did depend on having the right things in place. It very much depended on the school and the teacher. It was how comfortable the teacher felt with doing digital learning. That was a very new thing for teachers as well. There was a real variation across the board for an experience that you are learning now. Lastly, on that point, convener, do you think we will keep any element of this remote learning, Stephen, as we go forward or will we go back to normal and have everybody in school? Will we lose the advantages that the remote learning gave us or will we go back? We touched on the report, Mr Coffey, on recognising the differences between the first lockdown and the second lockdown and the additional role that Education Scotland undertook to co-ordinate the response across education providers in Scotland. We also make a recommendation in the report that—we are conscious of our remit—it will be for education providers in Scotland to draw assessments of how they wish to determine how education is provided in Scotland. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that, if there are any benefits that we have seen through the past 18 months that we can harness, whether it is in better preparedness for any future lockdowns or the opportunity to harness any of the positive experiences that Zoe refers to, we should of course do so and capture that in any future arrangements. Thank you very much for that. I think that Anthony Clark wanted to come in on this area as well with a few points, so I will invite Anthony to come in now. Thank you very much, convener. I wanted, if I may, to approach this point from a slightly different angle. I know that Mr Coffey is very interested in the technology support that children and families have in their home. I think that the committee might be interested in the other side of the coin, which is the technological support that is available from local authorities. I think that what we have found in our audit work of local authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic has been that those authorities that had invested in ICT technology over time were better prepared and better placed to pivot to different types of home-based learning and different types of online service delivery to their local citizens. I think that the pandemic shone a spotlight on the importance of local authorities continuing to invest in ICT so that they can provide different types of support for people moving forward. I leave open the question as to whether our hybrid learning will be part of the learning offering in the future, but if it is, it clearly makes a point that local authorities need to have good technological kit in place to support that. I don't know what might be useful for you to hear, Mr Coffey. Thank you, Mr Clark. Can I now turn to Sharon Dowey, who has a series of questions to ask? In its key audit themes report, the session 5 committee expressed its concern that a number of the audit reports have revealed that data and outcomes in relation to key service provision was incomplete or absent. Can you tell us the extent to which the less consistent and robust data in the NIA on wider outcomes has impacted your ability to measure the impact of the NIA and whether or not it is delivering value for money? Thank you. Good morning, Ms Dowey. I am delighted to start on that. I invite Tisha Meldrum and Anthony Clark, I am sure, to say a few words in addition. Absolutely, one of the key findings that we have in the report is that there is not a broad enough suite of data to measure the four aims of the curriculum. If I may, we also think that there is more than just data, there is an element of tone in commentary that skews some of that as well. We make reference in the report to what we consider to be in the feedback that we have received from across education practitioners is that there is no vert tone and focus on exam results as being the measure that matters most about how well a school is performing. Nonetheless, if there is a broad acceptance that a school is about more than exams, that is not reflected in the data and the associated milestones that go along with it. We see that there is data absolutely on the attainment and exam performance, but that is not reflected sufficiently in other aspects of the curriculum and the objectives of health and wellbeing in particular. That comes out as a key theme and judgment that we make in the report. There needs to be that parity of quality data and milestones in order to demonstrate and evidence that consistency across the core themes of the report. It is not a new theme that neither your successor committee nor Audit Scotland has commented on our planning for outcomes report, the committee's legacy report and many of the reports that the committee considered in its last session touched on this important point about the needing to be clear, robust data to measure the delivery towards that rounded suite of outcomes that we want for education. Just on that, for the exam results, there has been a lot of talk of doing into the exam results, so what were your thoughts on whether we keep exams or whether we were to get rid of them? That is probably a question that is best commented on by education providers. I am clear that, on my remit and that of Audit Scotland, we best stick to what we know and how the Scottish education curriculum is delivered in future. It is perhaps best for the Government and education to determine what we would say. In order to measure how schools are performing the experience of children and young people at schools, data goes beyond exams and into the wider suite. However, in terms of the specifics of whether we should or should not have exams, I would probably refer that to others, if you forgive me. So, would it affect your reliability to judge the attainment within the schools? Would it have a larger impact, a small impact? I am not sure if it does necessarily, because we have seen over the past couple of years if it is determined by a policy decision that attainment is measured either through teacher assessments, school assessments or some other vehicle through exams and if that is the basis on which Scottish education is determined, we would follow that data rather than determining what the policy would be, which is clearly outside of our remit. Your report states that the Scottish Government councils and their partners need to build on the work that is already undertaken to agree clear priorities for education recovery and improved outcomes after Covid-19. Are you aware of any action taken in relation to how those responses will ensure that the NIH outcomes will be measured, reported and acted on? I think again I am going to invite colleagues to come in to track the progress of what has happened since we reported and we will first turn to Antony Clark and then Tricia, if she wishes to add anything afterwards. Thank you, Mr Jenner. The answer to your question, Sharon, is that this is all being picked up in the Scottish Government's response to the OECD report, which is clearly trying to make sure that there is better alignment between the national improvement framework and curriculum for excellence, both of which are designed to improve outcomes and address inequalities, so the action is being taken forward through the response to the OECD. Just to pick up on something that Ms Meldrum had said earlier on, do you think that we have a robust enough system to follow those who choose to leave school at 16 to ensure that they have positive outcomes and that they do not fall through the cracks? What more could we do? In terms of Tricia's response, what I would add is that, like many others, we will be interested to follow through on the young person's guarantee, which probably feels like that will be the embodiment of how the positive destinations will be determined and following through in the data. Again, it goes back to data, but through the arrangements that the Government has committed to for post-school education for Scotland's children and young people, that is setting the targets, what is achieved and if something will be closely monitored and considered for future reporting through our audit work. I do not know whether Tricia Meldrum wants to come in on those questions that Sharon Dowey put. I think that one of the points that we make in the report is around the different pathways that are available to young people and so potentially so all their learning does not necessarily have to take place in schools. That broad range of opportunities being available through colleges and we see an increase quite a significant increase in the number of young people under 16 who are doing some learning at college and also more work around foundation apprenticeship, so more young people again working with employers in this part of their learning. We do see some increases there and quite big increases, the number is still quite small but quite big increases over the last two years in terms of these pathways being available. Again, our point is that that's not very well picked up through the data focusing on examination, so not necessarily picking up some of these vocational qualifications, they're not part of the key indicators, they don't get the same and they're not given perhaps the same kind of focus as some of the exam results and again talking to some of the young people in here about some of their challenges, so that perhaps that feeling of those other choices not having the same parity of esteem perhaps as being on at school and studying for your hires and studying for advanced hires, so trying to make sure that whatever happens in the future that those different pathways do have that parity of esteem and that again that is reflected in the data and is reflected in the scrutiny of the whole education system. I think a lot of kids have started to see now that there are benefits of other things other than higher education going on to other destinations, apprenticeships etc, so I think that message is getting through. More kind of looking at is there enough data to make sure that if somebody leaves school when they're 16, are we actually following the child to make sure that they have went to a positive outcome and they haven't fell through a crack and they don't have a job or the apprenticeships fell through, is somebody following them right through to make sure that we're seeing where the child's going to make sure they don't fall through the cracks? We'd agree with this, I hugely apologise Tricia. I'll maybe first and then invite Tricia to come in a second. I agree that that quality of data and tracking really matters, even stepping back from the very significant investment that Scotland makes in its future workforce effectively and skills and the important role that our children and young people will play across all aspects of Scotland's future life and prosperity. In terms of our own work, I would point to the fact that we are currently undertaking some audit work on the investing in skills arena within Scotland and how well that works, looking at the success of apprenticeship arrangements, foundation apprenticeships, modern apprenticeships and how well Scotland's skills system works together, the role of skills development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and so forth, and we will be reporting on that early in 2022. As well as our own work, we'd also agree that a theme of data matters and indeed for those organisations that are involved and that they are reporting transparently about how well our post-school system is working, that the positive destinations that are committed to are being achieved. Work for us to report on that for very much the case that for Scotland's skills bodies, our local authorities and the Government to report on that progress too. I really hand over again to Tricia. I'm going to come back on the question around the data on the 16 to 19-year-olds, so that's the participation data set, and that would be the main way that you would know what's happening to 16-year-olds. So there has been quite a lot of work gone into actually improving that data set in relation to reducing the number of young people who are with an unknown classification. So the last data that just came out a couple of weeks ago, that's down to 4.6 per cent, so it had previously been up at over 5 per cent, 6 per cent, and quite different again across different councils. We know that councils themselves and schools and skills development in Scotland have been put a lot of work into trying to reduce the number of unknowns, because if they're unknown, those young people are potentially don't know what's happening to them in terms of what their destination is. We know also that there's lots of work going on within councils and schools to really improve the positive destinations for their children and young people, so really focusing on the potential trajectory for these children and young people, what might they be going to college, might they be going to university, might they be going into training, et cetera, and really working with the young people around the best outcomes for them. So we did see lots of examples of that at that local level around re-improving participation and that positive outcome of that 16 to 19-page bracket. Thanks, I think that that's been a very useful session. Can I now turn to Colin Beattie, who I think has got a number of questions to which he wants to put around outcomes, Mr Beattie? Thank you, convener. General, looking at the report overall, it seems a pretty positive report, but of course, being the Public Audit Committee, we have to focus on the negative bits. Key message 4, page 5 of the report says that there's a wide variation of educational performance across councils in terms of declining performance against indicators and also where there has been improvements. Thinking back to previous discussions that we've had around this table, are you satisfied that the indicators and the way they're, what do you call it, filled, for want of a better word, by councils, the way they're put together by councils, constructed by councils, are directly comparable across the whole council scene? I'll maybe start actually, but I'm going to invite Anthony Clark to come in relatively swiftly on that point. Against the comparability of councils, it's difficult to do, and I think that we touched on in the report, because of the wide variation of factors that no two councils are exactly the same, depending on their geography, their level of poverty, their rurality in the council, the number of teachers that they employ, the distances that children and young people have to travel to school, and then of course all of the factors that we've touched on, Mr Coffey, about the individual home circumstances that children will all contribute to the ability with which to compare one council to another. If you're looking at a particular indicator, surely the elements that go into populating that are the same in every council, and if they're not, then they're not comparable. In terms of the comparability of the data and how it's compiled, it's our understanding that they are populated on the same basis, so every authority will be measuring the same question that's been asked of them, yes. So much of the variation must be directly comparable between councils in spite of variations as to the number of teachers and all other things. The indicators themselves should be robust. So again, Antony, you were to comment, I said, but we've no reason and there's nothing that came out in our audit work that suggests that there was any flaw in the data that's being presented. Then, leading on from that, given that there's a number of councils where indicators have gone the wrong way, are there any indications looking across the board of a common denominator? Is it schools that are mostly functioning in more deprived areas? Is there any sort of social element in this? Is there any physical element in this? Is there anything that we can point to and say, ah, that's the cause that these indicators are going down in that place? Again, I'll say one or two very brief words and I'm sure Antony will want to come in, actually. In the report that we also comment on, I guess, some of the factors on investment factors that have gone into local authorities, the attainment challenge, a very significant investment that's happened over the life of the previous Parliament and the commitment that has gone on from the Scottish Government to councils over the course of this Parliament. What we weren't able to do is to draw any clear conclusions that that money had universally led to improvement in outcomes for the indicators that have been measured. Very significant investment and that's one of the key recommendations that we make in the report that, as this is going to continue, that it's clear what is intended to be achieved. We've seen many interim evaluation reports undertaken by Education Scotland and, in no doubt, many examples of terrific practice of how that money has been used, but that's not borne out in the data, if we can really step back at a high level about what impact it is having. I think that that's probably enough for me and local authorities, Mr Beattie, and maybe I'll hand over to Anthony to broaden that out. Thank you very much, Mr Beattie. It's a very interesting question that you ask. Firstly, just to confirm what the Auditor General said, we have no concerns really about the quality and reliability and consistency of the data that's available. Great care is taken by the Scottish Government and local authorities to make sure that there is consistency in the approach. In our report, we talked about some experimental data that was being developed. I think that the Scottish Government and others are always very clear to test data before it's made publicly available, and the data that we report here is to the standard of the Office of National Statistics. The heart of your question is what's causing this variability of performance. It seems to us that there are a whole host of factors that bear on this. Some of it is to do with the different types of communities that the local authorities serve. Some more deprived communities, some more affluent communities is a factor. As the Auditor General has said, the level of investment that local authorities have made in education services will be a factor as well. There are very specific issues to do with the quality of leadership and the quality of teaching within schools, so there's no one single thing that can be single out as being the thing that makes a difference in terms of improving educational outcomes. You will notice from the report that some of the attainment challenge authorities are improving well. There are obviously the more disadvantaged educational authorities, others are performing less well in some ways of deteriorating. Conversely, you have some relatively affluent local authorities that are performing well, but equally some affluent authorities performing less well. Poverty and deprivation is not the whole story. We are also saying in the report that there is no clear causal link between levels of investment and outcomes as well. That is a very complicated picture. Much more needs to be done within the education system to better understand what it is that is making a difference on the ground. That is the role for regional improvement collaboratives, that is the role for educational authorities and that is the role for the Scottish Government too in identifying and sharing good practice across the system. That is a very complicated area. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic here, but it seems to me that if you have indicators, you have all the data that's going into these indicators, all the different aspects on a comparable basis between councils. If you have a number of councils where they have declining indicators, there must be something in common there. If you look across the board, there must be something that you can put your finger on and say that this is the most common factor in each case. It's not possible to approach it in quite that way, Mr Beattie. We've reported data at both national level and local authority level. Had we looked at the performance within individual educational authorities, we'd also see quite wide variation within and across schools as well. There are many factors that impact on positive or less positive performance. As I say, it's really important that the education system of the Scottish Government, RICS, educational authorities and educational leaders work together to better understand what's causing those positive outcomes and the less positive outcomes. This is very much a live debate within the education system at the moment. I don't know whether Trisha wants to add anything to what I've just said. She can nod if she doesn't want to. The only other thing I wanted to add was that point around factors that impact on outcomes for children and young people don't sit totally within the control of the education system. It's very much about how people working in education are working with their partners externally as well. We've talked in the report about links with health, with social work and with third sector partners as well. It's also very important that the families, parents and carers, but it's how schools, councils and RICS are working and at national level, how organisations are working across different parts of the public sector around the needs of the children and young people. Again, it's a very complex picture, but they are aware that the things that impact on outcomes are not all just things that happen within schools and within the school setting that relate to other parts of the public sector. It seems to me that indicators are there to inform and guide us as to future investment, future focus on where we put resources. If the current indicators do not do that, however comparable they might be, however accurate they might be, is there a case that we need different indicators in order to extract more detailed information or more cogent information that will allow us to take those decisions? Is that possible? I'll maybe start on that again, and Antony probably wants to come in and say a word or two as well. We would recognise that as one of the key findings from this report, that there isn't a broad enough suite of indicators to capture all aspects of the Scottish education system. We see the D report comments similarly. On the element that relates to exams as well, that again feels somewhat, perhaps not up for grabs, but if the level of change that we have seen over the past couple of years and how exams have undertaken, if that leads to further change, all the more reason that, if that is a reset moment, we need a new suite of indicators that measures and assesses how the Scottish education system is performing, particularly on the back of the pandemic, now is the opportunity to do so for the years to come. That would be one of the key findings of the report, Mr Beattie, that there isn't enough data to have that rounded assessment of how the Scottish education system is performing. To what extent have you had discussions with the Scottish Government on that? Clearly, we've cleared the report. There's a broad and emerging acceptance of the need for more data, but probably, as Anthony and Tricia have commented, the Scottish Government's response to both this report and the OECD report will inform our understanding of what happens next, both in terms of indicators and the clear data that supports the delivery of outcomes. I'm just moving on slightly to something that we've already talked about a little bit, which is the question of exams. Paragraph 42, page 22 of the report, correctly, says that those work in education are very much focused on children and young people's well-being as a key priority, and so it should be. Is it possible to measure that in any way, because so many things have happened where local authorities and the Scottish Government are trying to support young people and so on, to focus on their health and well-being and ensure that they're in a safe environment? Is there any way to measure that? Is there any objective view that can be taken on that? It has taken up a huge amount of time and resources and effort. You're right. There is an acceptance across the education system that that parity of esteem that education is about more than exams. However, in order to have that wider interpretation of how the system is performing, there needs to be a wider suite of indicators that capture health and well-being, confidence of children and young people, too. I think that Tricia will probably want to come in and get in a moment just to say what we've seen in both discussions and perhaps drawn on experience elsewhere of how that's measured and the opportunities for government and the education system to broaden that out. Our sense would be—and I think that this goes back to the whole planning for outcomes and data and quality of data and the outcomes that come from it—is that in order to do so, accepting that it's difficult and potentially challenging to do so, because I think that I will also draw a conclusion that if this was very easy, it would have been done by now, but nonetheless, if school is to shift away from being that sole focus on exams as we see in the indicators, we have to overcome this hurdle to have that broader suite of indicators. I invite Tricia to say a word or two more of what we've seen in the experience that we can draw on. Thank you. One of the indicators in the national improvement framework is around health and wellbeing, and that is based on some survey data, so it's not the same, obviously, as the exam data, which is based on every children and young person. The survey data was most recently from the Scottish Health Survey, so it's about 2019 or so. There is a bit of a lag, and it's obviously on a survey basis and on a very specific set of questions that are included in the health survey. We do know that work was going on prior to Covid around improving the data around health and wellbeing that could then feed into the national improvement framework that had started and was then paused because of the impact of Covid, so we're waiting to see what happens with that being picked up to see how you can get to that more rounded data set. We know, obviously, there's work going on within individual schools, within individual councils as well. One of the NIF drivers is around using data to really understand your own pupils as their own circumstances, and we saw, for example, Square, where that was really happening and the schools, the councils were using that information to really understand the circumstances of their pupils, be that in relation to things like their wellbeing as well, and to be targeting to their support to those pupils, around approaches to nurture, things like that as well. We know that there is a handle on this at that local level within schools and within councils in terms of their own priorities. It isn't yet reflected in terms of national data. There has been some work started and then paused by Covid, and we're waiting to see what will happen when that work restarts around getting some better national data, but at the moment it is quite a gap. Other issues around confidence, we haven't seen how that's going to be taken forward, and that is one of the four capacities of curriculum for excellence, so you would expect again to be able to know if things like that are actually happening and being delivered. Just one last question on this. We've already highlighted in questioning that there's disparity in the indicators in respect to the prominence of exam performance versus the wider outcomes, and in your report you make it clear that the Scottish Government and local authorities should be working together to ensure that there's more prominence given to that balance. Is there any indication that that is actually happening at the moment? You're right. I'm going to be behind straight to Anthony to update the committee, but it's a very clear recommendation that we make about broadening out the tone and measures and language that we use about school and measuring success, that it covers all those wider indicators and those broader pathways about how children and young people feel about themselves and the experience that they get from school education and how that's measured, but I'll pass to Anthony, Mr Beattie, to update the committee. Yes, Mr Beattie, it was very clear when we were doing our audit work that there was an acceptance within Governments at national and local levels that this is something that needs to happen, and you'll recall that the OECG report makes a very similar conclusion to the one that we did in our report, in that it concluded that, as you get into this linear phase of the school or a single, I think, from the ambitions of curriculum for excellence in terms of its wider outcomes, there is genuinely, I think, a commitment and an awareness and a willingness to make this change happen at both national and local level. I would be very surprised if that isn't one of the key actions that flows from the Scottish Commons response to the OECG report. I'm going to bring in Sharon Dowie back in, and I think that Willie Coffey's also got a question in the area that Sharon's pursuing. The Scottish attainment challenge, supported by the Scottish attainment fund, is designed to reduce inequality in education. However, in paragraph 74 of the report, page 31, Audit Scotland note that the SAF does not fully reflect broader demographic issues, specifically mentioning rural communities. What improvements do you feel could be made to the SAF to reflect the inequalities mentioned in paragraph 74? Thank you. I'll happily say a word and invite Zoe to come back in and say a little bit more about what options exist. The background to the Scottish attainment challenge and the attainment Scotland funding was to tackle the attainment gap that existed between Scotland's most deprived and least deprived communities in children and young people in education. The funding that came from that was based on the identification of nine attainment challenge authorities in Scotland, which had the greatest concentration of incidents of multiple deprivation, as identified by the SIMD, the Scottish Insider of Multiple Deprivation, factors with the quartiles 1 and 2. That set out the nine authorities, and that led to the funding that flowed from them. There are critics of that approach, Ms Dowie, and we certainly came across in the conversations that we had with education practitioners during our audit work, that it was, as you alluded to, perhaps too blunt a tool with which to allocate funding, in that it did not sufficiently address where there were perhaps not so much pockets but a wide dispersal of poverty in rural areas. It was factors where there were generally affluent local authority, but again there were pockets of deprivation in there, but it was not reflected in the overall profile of the local authority. That led to suggestions that there may be better ways of doing this. Particularly looking at the funding announcement that happened over the summer, there will be a further £1 billion of funding made available through the attainment challenge fund. It is that other mechanisms that can do so. There are some safeguards in the current measure, so there is some direct funding to schools over and above the total council area that attempts to allow for some of those disparities, but the feedback that we receive from education providers over it did not do it sufficiently and at risk it was too blunt a tool to address where there were pockets of deprivation or particular features of a local authority that were not sufficiently measured in the overall SIMD targets. Again, capturing that in the report, the need for a wider look and say that are there different tools that funding could be allocated to close the poverty-related attainment gap. I will invite Zoey just to come in if there is anything more she wishes to say on this topic. Thank you very much. As the old journalist said, I think that there was a feeling with the report that the SIMD was just doing quite capture the spread of deprivation. We did some fieldwork in our first set of work up in Shetland, and there was very much a feeling that—as the SIMD is measured by post-code—once you look at a rural area, that can cover such a wide area, so that we do not reflect necessarily the deprivation in those rural areas. As the old journalist said, sometimes you have more affluent areas, but there are small pockets within that of people of deprivation, and they are not necessarily always being targeted. I suppose that another thing to think about is that, in the midst of the pandemic, that has affected deprivation levels, and there might be some families that are now in a different position than they were previously when the SIMD was put forward. That has to be brought out in terms of any more funding and how that is targeted in the future. More opportunity to think about other—in review of the attainment challenge fund allocations, and if there is a wider consideration of indicators, particularly with the significance of the sums that have been allocated to alternative ways that might better target children and young people over and above the ways that have been used today. Willie Coffey, do you want to come in? Thank you very much again, convener. Just on this agenda, the inequality agenda, Stephen Meehan, your report is good. It is recognising that the gap has narrowed, that is quite clear, and that is to be welcomed and commend the local authorities, and particularly those in that group of nine that have made those efforts to begin to close the gap. You then go on to say that it needs to happen more quickly. I want to ask you what are your views and recommendations about how that can happen more quickly. Sometimes, convener, if the education system is doing and has done the best it can and the circumstances that they found themselves in, how on earth can we do that more quickly? You also mentioned that there is a further billion pounds coming down the line to help here, so do you get the sense that the Government is listening to your messaging that we need to think smarter, clever differently about how we deploy these funds to try to reach those communities that you mentioned a wee while ago in Lentrisha and Zoey. Do we need to shape and think about how we deploy those funding in a much better way to get that quicker turnaround that you hope for? Again, I will start, Mr Coffey, and I should add to know what to say a word or two about the local authorities' role in that. As you set out your question, a number of the factors as to how that might be achieved in building on the conversation that we have had already this morning about the quality of data, the wider suite of indicators. We would also recognise that progress has been made, so the attainment gap on a national basis has narrowed and yet we still see a wide variation of performance looking across councils themselves. We think that it is all those things about the quality of the indicators, good quality data to measure the intended outcomes. Building on good practice as well, and one of the recommendations that we point in the report, is that there are many examples across the country of where interventions, high quality education has taken place but the failing new role of the regional improvement collaborative is to share out the expertise across the country. Whatever happens in future with Scotland's education bodies will have a clear role to play to. The inspection approach that Scotland takes to education as well will also play a significant role in driving forward improvement. Unfortunately, as ever, there is no one single answer to that. Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the impact that it has had on Scotland's children and young people, and we do not shy away from the sense of urgency that a significant period of time has passed and huge plans for further investment. We all have a right to expect that that will lead to a step change that we have not seen in the report that has been fairly marginal improvements and below the Government's own ambitions. The Government set the conversation that my colleagues and I had with Government officials about stretch aims. Stretch aims are a good thing. They are right to be demanding targets, but they will be based on ambition. I guess that it is to sustain that level of ambition that for all the things that I guess we spoke about at the start of the conversation, 10 years post-Christie, if that is one of the changes that Scotland can make as a country, then we should be right to be ambitious. However, it is not easy. Nor would I suggest that there will be a range of components towards making the change that is before us. I hope that that is kind of rough into that, but I am sure that I want to say a word or two more. The Auditor General is absolutely right. That is not an easy and straightforward thing. There will be debates about whether or not the pace of improvement was sufficiently fast. The progress that was made into the entertainment gap fell quite a bit short of what the Scottish Government had committed to, and you will gather that from the report. As the Auditor General says, there is not one single thing that needs to happen here. It is partly about leadership, it is partly about data, and it is partly about practice within schools. However, I will also refer back to the comments that Trisha made earlier. This is not just about schools. It is about the life circumstances of children and families that can contribute to better long-term outcomes. Obviously, it has been a terrible and tragic event for many people across Scotland. It has been something that no-one can think of as being a positive thing, but it has shown a real spotlight on the issue of inequalities in ways that we have not had for many, many decades. The strong sense that we are getting is that Scottish Government, local government and others are really wanting to build that issue of focusing on addressing inequalities into their recovery planning. That is not just about education recovery, it is about economic recovery and health recovery. If people have a joined-up approach to Covid-19 recovery that places equalities at the centre, one would hope that we might see some more rapid progress and close entertainment gap as a consequence of that. I am now going to turn to Craig Hoy, who has a series of questions. I think that you want Craig to make a declaration of interest before you put your questions. If I could just draw the committee's attention to my register of interests, which obviously details me as a member of the East Lothian Council Education Committee. Good morning, Mr Boyle. I think that it is commonly and widely accepted that poverty and inequality are very stubborn stains on the fabric of modern Scotland. You said in relation to Covid-19 in your opening remarks that those living in the most challenging circumstances would be hit hardest by Covid. In paragraph 87 of the report, you speak of the need for the Scottish Government and councils and their partners to fully understand the impact of Covid-19 on all young people and request that they gather the relevant data if they are to support the development of appropriate responses. Are you satisfied with the action that has been taken to date in relation to this? Good morning, Mr Boyle. We in the report refer to a number of steps that have been taken, none of which will be complete yet, as to sufficiently assessing both the impact of Covid-19 on children and young people, nor the steps that they identify to address. I think that it probably builds on the conversation that we have just had with Mr Coffey about the range of steps that will need to flow in front of the back of the pandemic. We refer to one in the report that the equity audit that the Scottish Government undertook, and they will know that there will be similar activity that is taking place across the country to assess the impact that the pandemic is having on the range of indicators and the need for a broader suite of indicators, and especially the volume of public spending that will be allocated to education in the £1 billion that we have mentioned in the attainment challenge fund. However, the significant component of local authority budgets that education makes up is that that money is well spent and sufficiently targeted, whether it is using the existing SIMD indicators or whether there are other mechanisms. I cannot give you the assurance that you are asking for this morning as to whether all of the steps that have been taken will be something that will be done through our work on a national basis and the work that we undertake in local authorities and, fundamentally, the work that councils and their partners themselves take to assess the impact and develop the necessary plans, but it is work that we will continue to return to. Just over the last 18 months, councils, in particular the education departments, have been working around the clock to set up hybrid learning and distance online learning, and then to get in-classroom learning back up and running again. Do you think that councils have got sufficient resource to compile this relevant data, or is it something that could be lost in the scramble to get education back up and running again? I am going to quickly hand over to Anthony Clark, given his role as the interim director from Zod and Vesallu, but, importantly, the controller of audit and his closeness to how well councils are responding. I think that you are quite right, Mr White. There is a risk around this aspect of restarting the education system, but the sense that we have got from our engagement with local authorities from our engagement with the Association of Directors of Education Services is that schools have been doing a really sterling effort in understanding the circumstances of different children and what support they need, both in terms of the hybrid setting and also thinking through what additional support those children might need moving forward as we shift into the education recovery phase. I think that we are broadly confident that this is happening at the moment, so I think that we are broadly confident that this is happening at the moment, Mr White. Just in follow-up to that, gathering the data and compiling the evidence of what has happened is one thing, but implementing a series of measures so that we avoid bad outcomes is obviously another. That is not as if we are trying to compile that data to learn lessons should we see Covid occur again in the future. It is to deal with the damage that has obviously taken place now, so have you got sufficient assurance that actually we are going to see this journey through to the end and that there will be measurable implementation of different initiatives to make sure that we tackle the worst of Covid on particularly vulnerable children? I do not think that I can give you that assurance, Mr White, but what I can give the assurance is that all the people who are engaging within the system are committed to making that happen, but any time will tell whether or not they will be successful. Just in your report, it explains that improving outcomes for children and young people through school education requires the contribution of wider stakeholders, health, social work and the third sector and that the Covid-19 children and families collective leadership group was established in May 2020, which will help to provide scope to build on a future cross sector collaboration. How important in improving outcomes is the contribution of those wider stakeholders and why? I am happy to start that action, and I am sure that Anthony and perhaps also Zoe will want to comment on what we have seen. We do think that it is very important that, and it is something that we have commented on in a number of areas, the importance of the community contribution to the achievement of outcomes working closely across partnerships, as we have touched on in your question, health councils. The fact that the school community involves many different contributors probably broadens out to the wider school experience, that there will be many different pathways, whether it is through skills, modern apprenticeships and those start at an earlier stage or at the moment that the young person leaves school will be access to different providers and opportunities to lead to that kind of post-school experience. It is hugely important, especially on the back of Covid, that that sense of that is a collective effort, that collaborative leadership to deliver better outcomes for Scotland's children and young people. Maybe I will turn to Anthony and perhaps also Zoe to say a little bit more about that collaborative leadership and how that is working. As the other general says, this is a hugely important area, Mr Hoy. We know that local authorities and education authorities have for many, many years been working in partnership with health, the third sector, police and others to try and provide, if you like, joined up support for children in their learning. We also know that schools are an important part of this, but not the whole story. If you think about the different needs of children, they are all individuals. Some children have additional support needs, some children have special support that might need to be required. That is not always best delivered by a school, it can often be best delivered by the third sector or a charity. That makes it all the more important that there is effective joint working between the education authority, the school and their partners in the local area. We also need to think about the broader things that can contribute to good outcomes for young children, decent housing, having food on the table and stable employment in their families. That, for me, reinforces the importance of education being situated in the wider context of the community. I am very much in agreement with the other general on that. I am sure that Tricia, I am sure that Zoe may have something to add to that as well. I will add my agreement with them and say that, within our fieldwork of the first set of what we did when we went out to councils, we really did see on the ground the effect that third sector organisations had to improving young people's outcomes and could really target certain young people and understand their needs. They are taking that real kind of holistic approach around the school and around that child to understand what it is that they need. Some very good positive examples of where the third sector in particular really helped to contribute to that. Finally, the children and families group was set up in addition to the Covid-19 education recovery group. How effectively do you think that those groups, and specifically the children and families collective leadership group, is in sharing and highlighting good practice? Have you, as yet, got any indication of whether or not that good practice is then finding its way through to measurable and implementable solutions? I suspect that it might be too early to draw any firm conclusions. Again, I will invite Zoe to say a word or two more. We have commented in the round that those groups responded quickly. They were broad representation from across interested parties and that they were all making best endeavours to share good practice, collective leadership across the country. How successful that will be probably feels that it is going to be something that we will want to return to. The group, of course, will want to turn to make assessments of the impact of their contribution. We will remain on our radar, Mr Hoy, but I think that at the moment it is probably a little bit early to draw conclusions. Again, I invite Zoe to say if there is anything more she wishes to add. I just echo that it is a little bit too early to draw those conclusions. Also, to add in to the mix around the reason for improvement in the collaborative and education authorities and through other social directors of education to come together to help to share that good practice as well. Thank you very much. Can I end with a couple of questions about the money? As I read the report, and if I read it correctly, the report seems to conclude that, while overall total national education spending on schools rose between 2013-14 and 2018-19 by 0.7 per cent in real terms, within that there was quite a bit of variation. I think that one of the things that struck me that the report concluded was that in those councils that were targeted for attainment Scotland funding, there was quite a variation there too. For example, again, keep me right if I am wrong on this, but my understanding is that, with the exception of Glasgow City Council, all those attainment challenge councils saw a drop in that period in educational spending, if they exclude the attainment Scotland funding. I thought that the attainment Scotland funding was meant to be additional to tackle a particular problem. I wonder whether you have any reflections on that, comments on that and whether you have a view about what that impact was on those councils where, in their mainstream operational spending, there was a reduction in their budget. Thank you, convener. I will hand to Antony in a moment or two. I think that your analysis is right that spending on Scottish education increased from £4.1 billion to £4.3 billion and 0.7 per cent in real terms, as you mentioned. Part of the money, of course, relates to the attainment challenge funding. One of the aspects that came out, perhaps, to highlight from our report, is that the doubt about the durability of that subsequently confirmed that it has been extended, and how that impacted upon spending, sustainability and education that Scotland found in its work. The sustainability of the funding matters, and the associated effectiveness of it. Always the case of the sense that money is going to be available for a short time, that will influence the choices in the spending patterns that councils and schools, especially given the nature of that funding, much of it was devolved for individual headteachers to determine. We recognise all those factors about the need for both a sustainable funding model in the Scottish education system and the impact that the attainment challenge funding had on the overall picture through the course of the period that we looked at. I will hand over to Antony just to explore that a little bit further about how that interacted with councils' overall education spending. Thank you. You have interpreted the report quite correctly. What we saw in the report was quite a mixed and variable pattern of education investment by local authorities, whether they were attainment challenge authorities or non-attainment challenge authorities. It is really a matter of local policy choice, to an extent, how local authorities choose to invest in education, social work, housing or other services, but we did see variability across the piece. There is an open question about the effectiveness of the attainment challenge funding. The evaluation work presents a slightly mixed picture there. The feedback from headteachers and others that are using the fund, as you will see from the report, we have not seen that filtering through into improved education outcomes using the relatively narrow major effects and results at this point. I will come back to that point in a minute. I just wanted to ask as well about something else that is covered in your report. It would have been very fresh at the time of the report, and we have now got some benefit of a slightly longer view of it. That was the money that was set aside to help the logistics of schools reopening at the start of the year. I think that there was £50 million additional funding allocated to help schools reopen safely. At the time, as I recall it, local councils were saying that this was insufficient to do what we need to do. At the time, the Scottish Government said that it is sufficient. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to review that and to see if somebody was right and somebody was wrong. We recognise the debate that took place at the time of the £50 million funding and the commentary from places that that would not be enough to cover all of what was required. We have also seen over the course of the summer, since our report was published, that additional funding has been made available to support some of the reopening requirements. Whether that allows us to draw a conclusion that one party was right and another was wrong, I am not sure that we are able to do so, but perhaps to recognise the complexity and the additional funding that has flowed in. The on-going costs around additional cleaning PPE that is still being made available and the need for any choices and policy choices about the funding environment for individual schools and councils will probably have to factor all of those Covid-related safety measures for a good well yet. On a number of occasions in this morning's session, the £1 billion announced over the summer which is presumably a commitment by the Scottish Government to, at least for the term of this Parliament, keep investing in mechanisms for closing the attainment gap. Is that additional money over and beyond the core funding for education delivered by local government? Secondly, again, this is something that has been a thread running through our conversations is about not just where things go wrong but where things go right. What sense do you get of a sharing of good practice, a sharing of things that work using this funding? There are clearly certain stipulations about what it can and cannot be spent on, which led to some very innovative ideas, especially in the early days of its introduction. I wonder whether you get a sense that there is collaboration, sharing of good practice and that is then helping to inform if there is additional £1 billion in the system, whether that is going to be well spent and provide value for money and have the effect that is desired. I will cover part of your question and my response and I invite colleagues. Zoe may be the best place to comment on the extent of collaboration that is taking place across councils. I think that we touched on the report that there are some great examples of how this money has been used across the country and the impact that it has had on children and young people. Perhaps the need, and again reflected in the Education Scotland interim reports that they have looked at the success of the people equity fund over the course of the past few years, the need for those good practice examples to be shared more widely for the collaboration that exists in the education sector to use those examples for impact. Whether it is through leadership arrangements, inspection arrangements, all of those serve to best effect to ensure that that money has been used to best practice. As we have touched on this morning, we were not able to draw any firm conclusions that the money had made that widespread difference, as it suggested by the indicators and probably the lack of the widespread indicators that needs to come. That would be one of the conclusions that we would also draw, as the Government has committed to the additional £1 billion over the life of this parliamentary term to close the poverty-related attainment gap. It seizes on the opportunities that, for those good practice, better indicators to support better outcomes as we move forward. However, I will ask as a way to come in on some of the collaboration examples and practice that we have seen, and to address the point that you asked about the additionality factor of the budget of this money over and above local government spending. Thank you very much. In terms of the sharing of good practice, I think that we could see it happening across local authorities. I think that there was a recognition that a lot of the spending was more useful in terms of trying to, again, come about to sustainability, the sustainability of the funding, to where successful projects were put in place to try and boost capacity, and to try and boost staffing and things like that, rather than specific objects and things, was quite successful. I think that that information is very much shared across local authorities at the right idea around sustainability. I might just buzz into my colleague, Trisha, just to bum around the £1 billion investment that has been additional. Thank you. That is my understanding that that is additional. We know that the attainment challenge is running until next year. We don't know what will happen beyond the attainment challenge, so we are waiting to hear announcements on whether or not there will be something separate that will replace it or how that is going to work going forward. Just if I could come in on the sharing of good practice points as well. Just to make the point around the role of Education Scotland there as well in working with the councils and also working with the regional improvement collaboratives. Their role is very much around working with individual schools, councils, to be looking at what is happening, what is working to be sharing that within their own regional improvement areas, but also across the whole organisation, so to be sharing that more widely and to be helping to roll that out across the system as well. Again, we have recommendations in the report around Education Scotland working with their partners to continue to do that and really understanding what it is that is driving the improvement and understanding what is contributing to the variation as well so that they can continue to build on good practice, particularly around the niff drivers or things like teacher professionalism and leadership and using data to understand local context. I think that there is a hero for Education Scotland there as well. Thank you very much indeed. On behalf of the committee, I thank Stephen Boyle, his team this morning, Anthony Clark, Trisha Meldrum and Zoe Maguire for keeping us informed and answering the questions that we put. We really appreciate your time and the work that you're doing and can I draw the public part of this morning's committee to an end.