 I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on the Scottish national standardised assessments. A key principle of Scottish education is that assessment is an essential part of our approach to learning. It allows teachers to understand pupils' progress and to plan the next phase of their learning and teaching. Assessment is therefore a key tool to inform teachers' professional judgment of the needs of the pupils that they are teaching. Almost all local authorities in Scotland have been making use of some form of standardised assessment for a number of years. By having national assessments, we can now ensure that a consistent approach is being taken, which greatly helps in ensuring effective moderation of standards throughout the country, a crucial component of our determination to deliver excellence and equity for all. The value of assessment was set out last week by Professor Sue Ellis of the University of Strathclyde, when she said, We know that there is a big difference in children's attainment when they start school, and that difference grows and gets wider as children move through the school system, so we do need some way of tracking that and checking it. Most councils in Scotland already had P1 assessments and have had them for some years. In fact, the majority did not simply carry out one assessment of P1 pupils, they did it twice at different points during the year. The reason for that was that teachers found them a useful source of information for tracking and checking the progress of pupils that Sue Ellis mentions and then for planning future teaching and learning to meet the needs of individual pupils. The national assessments are simply a consistent tool to provide the same information to teachers. Unlike the old assessments, the Scottish national standardised assessments are better aligned to curriculum for excellence, making the reports that teachers receive even more valuable. On average, the P1 assessments take 22 minutes for numeracy and 27 minutes for literacy. Delivered as part of routine classroom activity, they should not place children under any undue stress. Last week, I published a user review of the assessments first year. That drew on a range of comments and feedback, and I would like to highlight some key points. 578,000 assessments were carried out across P1, P4, P7 and S3, and I would like to thank pupils and staff for all their efforts. That number represents around 94 per cent of the total number of possible assessments, which I think strikes the appropriate balance between the presumption that the majority of pupils will undertake the assessments and the exercise of teacher judgment about whether it is in the best interests of an individual child to participate. The user review received a range of comments. We know that many teachers find the reports on how children have done to be very useful, with high-quality diagnostic information on the strengths and challenges of individual young people. We know that many children and young people found the assessments a positive experience because they were deployed in a relaxed way as a part of routine classroom activity. However, I know that that was not the case everywhere. We received clear feedback, raising a number of concerns about the assessments. That feedback is a concern, particularly where the assessment of a young pupil was not viewed as a positive experience. No one wants any child to find the assessment stressful or upsetting. However, in recognising that that has been the experience for a small number, and the user review recognises the concerns expressed by EIS members and others, I think that it is important to keep those matters in context. The actual number of responses to the EIS survey is relatively small, around 460 out of a total teaching population of over 51,500. Not all of those 460 responses were raising concerns. A significant number of them had positive and constructed things to say about the assessments. I am not surprised by that. When I speak to teachers, it is clear that, when the assessments are set up and run appropriately, they are a positive benefit in our education system. I accept, however, that this is the first year of a brand new system of assessments. There are clearly things that we can enhance and improve to make things better for pupils and teachers, and the user review sets out a number of positive changes that are being introduced this year. I will highlight three specific measures today. First, the voice that is missing from the user review and the EIS survey is that of children and young people. We will address that by including, at the end of each assessment, a short age-appropriate survey for children and young people that will encourage them to give feedback on their experience. Secondly, we will also establish a P1 practitioner improvement forum to share existing practice and consider how to enhance the overall assessment model in Scotland. Thirdly, as we planned, there will be a replenishment of about one-third of the questions in all of the assessments to ensure that they are appropriately assessed how children and young people are performing. I am confident that the changes that we are making will enhance the experience for children and young people and improve the information that is available to teachers. I also want to ensure that those enhancements benefit pupils in Gallic media education. I have decided to only roll out national standardised assessment to Gallic media education once the relevant lessons from the user review are taken into account in their development. That means that the assessments will be available in Gallic media education later this calendar year. There has also been some discussion recently about whether or not parents have the right to withdraw their children from the assessments. The Scottish Government and the Association of Directors of Education issued a joint statement earlier this week to provide clarity around that point. The Scottish Government and ADES see the assessments as an integral part of everyday learning in P1, P4, P7 and S3 delivered as part of the duty to provide education. In common with virtually all aspects of the Scottish curriculum and its delivery, the SNSAs are not explicitly provided for in legislation. That is in keeping with the long tradition of a non-statutory curricular approach in Scotland. That means that the assessments are not compulsory but also that there is no legal right for parents to withdraw their children from the assessments. In fact, there is no statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from any aspect of schooling other than some parts of religious observance and instruction. The position on standardised assessments is the same as it is on literacy and numeracy. There is no explicit statutory mention requiring a school to teach them—I never have had in Scotland—but the idea that this means schools are not required to teach pupils to read and write is patently ridiculous. The same is true of standardised assessments. In practice, should any parents or carers have any particular concerns about their child's participation, they should discuss this with their school. It has been the case since the introduction of the Scottish National Standardised Assessments that a child should not undertake an assessment when it would not be in their best interests to do so. Rightly, it is for teachers in discussion with parents to determine when that is the case. The position is consistent with what we have said previously in correspondence with local authorities, schools and parents. It is consistent with our joint statement with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, and it is consistent with the recent letter from the Deputy Director of the Scottish Government Learning Directorate to Directors of Education. In relation to that letter, I want to make clear that my officials did seek a view from SOLAR, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers, about the withdrawal of children from the SNSA to confirm that our understanding was aligned with that of local authority partners. The letter from the Deputy Director of the Learning Directorate to Directors of Education set out the position as he understood it. It was sent in good faith. The substance of that letter on parental optouts from the assessments is consistent with our joint assessment with ADES. It is important, as the National Parent Forum of Scotland said last week, that there is a clear understanding of the purpose of the assessments for the benefits of parents and carers. Those are not high-stakes tests but diagnostic assessments to support learning and teaching. Data from them will not be published or used for accountability, they are to inform learning and teaching. They are aligned to curriculum for excellence and at P1 are complementary to the play-based approach, which is central to the early-level curriculum. Children should not be prepared for the assessments, there is no pass or fail, they are not to determine whether a child has a mastery of a subject but to help teachers to determine future learning and teaching. Teachers' professional judgment of children's progress is key. The role of the assessments is to provide a consistent approach across the country to support our desire to deliver excellence and equity for all. Presiding Officer, I remain committed to the assessments at all stages. The changes that we have announced in the user review will help to improve the system to address the concerns that were raised during the first year of operation. I am confident that, as we continue to refine and enhance the assessments, they will prove to be a positive experience for children and young people and provide a range of valuable information for teachers and parents. Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary will now take questions. I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak button and a call on Liz Smith. I thank the cabinet secretary for making this statement about an issue that I think has caused considerable confusion to parents and for forwarding to us the most recent letter of clarification that was signed jointly by the Scottish Government and ADES. Last week, a letter was sent out to local authority directors of education from the Scottish Government's deputy director Graham Logan. It stated that the Scottish Government had taken legal advice from the local authority's legal body solar with regards to the rights of parents to withdraw their children from primary 1 tests. Solar, however, refuted that it had provided any such legal advice. We learned this morning at the education committee that the Scottish Government admits that it had been wrong to imply that any legal advice of this nature had been taken. May I ask the cabinet secretary, did he personally sign off the letter that Mr Logan issued last week in which the misleading information appeared? And secondly, at what stage did he become aware that a mistake had been made? Thirdly, the subsequent letter to directors of education that has been issued this morning says that none of the standardised tests at P1, P4, P7 and S3 are compulsory but are part of the local authority's duties to provide education. Given the Scottish Government's previous insistence that standardised testing is absolutely essential in order to raise attainment in our classrooms, a point with which I agree, may I seek clarification as to whether teachers are now free to decide whether or not a class of children will sit those tests and whether the results of those non-compulsory standardised tests will be used as the key measure to determine whether or not the Scottish Government is making progress or not in narrowing the attainment gap. First of all, I did not sign off the letter that was issued by the deputy director to directors of education, but I take full responsibility for it because I am a minister in the Scottish Government and it is right that I take full responsibility for it. We did not seek legal advice from Solar. We discussed the legal position that we hold to, which has been consistent throughout all of the Government's communication on this matter. We discussed that with representatives of the Solar organisation, but as I explained at committee this morning, an error was made in our handling of the issue in that we expressed a view that we believe to have been expressed by Solar, but which, in fact, Solar does not express such a point. I can only apologise to the Parliament for the events that took place in that respect, but I take responsibility for it because I should take responsibility for it. I stress the key point that the substance of the message in the letter from the deputy director is the consistent substance of the Government's position on this matter, and it was consistent with other advice that the Government had taken at the time. In relation to the final point that Liz Smith raised with me on the issue of whether classes will take forward those assessments, I have made it as clear as I possibly can do that standardised assessments are part of the routine process of learning of young people within Scottish education, just as acquiring the skills of literacy and numeracy are part of their learning experience. The Government's expectation is that pupils will undertake standardised assessments at P1, P4, P7 and S3. However, as the evidence that I have marshaled in front of Parliament today makes clear, not all pupils took the assessments because teachers were able to exercise judgment about whether they were in the interests of individual pupils for them to undertake those assessments, and that is, as it should be, relying on teacher judgment. The very last point that Liz Smith raised was about the information that is gathered to determine whether we are closing the poverty-related attainment gap. As Liz Smith will know, the Government set out in the publication in December last year of the national improvement framework the measures by which we will be held to account as to whether we have succeeded in closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Those measures relate to the identification by teachers of whether or not young people have reached the levels, at early level, first, second or third level, within our education system, within curriculum for excellence. Standardised assessments will inform the teacher judgments, but the final publication does not rest exclusively on the outcome of the standardised assessments. Iain Gray Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. The education secretary clearly missed the lesson in stopping digging when in a whole. Faced with evidence of stress on four and five-year-olds caused by those tests, testimony from teachers that they are time-consuming and have little educational worth, and a campaign by parents to boycott them, he carries on regardless. In P1 at least, they should be suspended. I believe that that is the view of this Parliament, and I hope that we will have the chance to demonstrate that as soon as possible. Those tests do not command the confidence of teachers. Can the cabinet secretary tell us how many schools have actually replaced those old and trusted diagnostic assessments that they were using, as he said, and how many have simply just added his national assessments on because he told them to and they had to use them? Their purpose remains confused. The First Minister has repeatedly told us that those assessments replace the numeracy and literacy survey, and that they will monitor progress in closing the attainment gap and compare school to school and authority to authority. However, if they are an integral part of everyday learning, statistically, they cannot do that. Once and for all, are those diagnostic assessments or are they monitoring standards because they cannot do both? On the last point that Ian Gray raised, the purpose of the standardised assessments is to ensure that teachers are able to use them to enhance the learning and teaching experience of young people to identify where young people individually have particular deficiencies and challenges and where they need support. The difference between that approach and the type of survey approach that Mr Gray was arguing for over the summer is that, when it comes to—survey information can only give us a general picture—it cannot give us a specific picture about the needs of individual young people. I want to make sure—this is the fundamental issue—that our education system is equipped with information that is effectively moderated around the country so that, in one part of the country, we can be confident that the right standards are being applied to ensure that young people have access to an education system that is driven by excellence and equity and, in another part of the country, the same guarantee can be given to children, young people and their families. The purpose of standardised assessments is to focus on the needs of individual young people to enhance learning and to give teachers confidence about the moderation of standards around the country. Only through that device are we able to have confidence that the levels of achievement are being delivered by young people, which demonstrates that we are closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That is the purpose of standardised assessments. That is why they are vital, because they help us to inform the interventions that are required to support the learning and teaching of young people in Scotland. Ross Greer will be followed by Tavish Scott. I thank the Deputy First Minister for advancing sight of his statement. The way of international evidence is not behind the Deputy First Minister and his standardised assessments. In the case of primary 1 tests, it is quite clear that a majority of this Parliament wants to see them go, and sooner or later that is what we are going to vote for. Will the Scottish Government just cut its losses and scrap the testing of the primary 1 children? I have set out my position that I remain committed to the assessments at all levels in Scottish education, because I do not want to have a situation where we do not have an opportunity at the earliest possible opportunity in a child's formal education to identify where that child may have particular learning challenges. Those assessments produce very sophisticated diagnostic information about the educational challenges of young people. I want that information to be available so that at the earliest opportunity we can act to close the attainment gap, because I do not want to preside over an education system and where the needs of children are left unmet. Mr Greer consistently pursues the needs of ensuring that every child's needs in our system are met, and I respect his position. He argues for it consistently. I am simply trying to apply that in relation to this issue. However, when young people come into our education system, they come into a play-based curriculum at the early level. I want to see them assessed on the basis of that curriculum, and if there are any educational requirements that they have, I want them addressed pronto so that they are not left unaddressed and therefore the gap in their performance increases relative to other children. That is why I want to standardise assessments at primary 1. That is the educational rationale that is supported by significant international evidence into the bargain. That is why I ask Parliament to consider carefully the issues that I present today as being the justification for ensuring that we have those assessments to protect the educational opportunities of children and young people. Tavish Scott is filled by James Dornan. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advanced copy of his statement. I must say that I profoundly disagree with the contention that testing five-year-old boys and girls is consistent with play-based learning. Far more importantly than my view, nor do many educationalists or experts or multiple point teachers that I can find. I disagree with the assessment that Mr Swinney has just given to Ross Gere. In the weight of evidence that we have all read on the usefulness of data, there is quote after quote after quote about whether that data is of any merit whatsoever. Therefore, can I politely suggest that he would not reflect on that? Would he not reflect on the fact that he has not carried the case in terms of four- and five-year-old girls and boys? The majority of the argument, the majority of the case, is that this is not adding to teachers' experience and more to the point. We will do nothing to close the gaps that we know exist in education and desperately need to be addressed. On the final point that Mr Scott makes about whether the assessments help us in any of our efforts to close the attainment gap, I take a different view. All of the evidence that I have looked at indicates that the drive's government policy and a whole variety of different areas around early intervention—all the evidence that I have looked at—is that the earlier we can identify any challenges that are faced by young people and address them, the quicker we are taking steps to close the attainment gap. I looked at the assessments when they were in their development stage along with some teachers. I was struck by the reaction of teachers to the diagnostic information that was presented as a consequence of those assessments, which demonstrated quite clearly areas where young people are required to have support to enhance their educational performance. The assessments are an integral part of the process of trying to address the challenges and the issues that young people will face. There will, of course, be divided opinions about those points. We can all marshal quotes that say that they are a good thing and a quote that says that they are not a good thing. What I am appealing to Parliament to do is to look at the role of those assessments as part of informing the improvement of learning and teaching in Scotland with a view to ensuring that teachers are equipped with all the information that they need to have to make a judgment about the educational opportunities of children and young people. I hope that Parliament will consider those issues in the manner in which I have set them out today, because I think that they represent a very strong opportunity for us to ensure that we work with our schools around the country to take all the action that we can take to close the attainment gap in Scottish education. The opening questioners have had the opportunity to set out each of their party's positions, so I welcome shorter questions and appropriately shorter answers as we make progress through all the rest of this statement. James Dornan will be followed by Alison Harris. We have heard a lot of talk about why this is not a good idea from the opposition parties, but could you outline to us some of the suggestions that you have received from the opposition parties and how we can close the stubborn attainment gap if we do not have clear and consistent evidence around our children's learning? Obviously, there are a range of different interventions that the Government is taking forward to close the poverty-related attainment gap through the work that we are undertaking on the Scottish attainment challenge and pupil equity funding. Various schools are taking a whole variety of different approaches to try to do that, some by enhancing literacy and numeracy approaches, some by supporting not just to overcome some of the challenges that young people face in their education, others by introducing outdoor learning into the curriculum and strengthening the experiences of young people in the outdoors. Obviously, there is a debate to be had about the measures and the interventions that we can make to close the poverty-related attainment gap. I am interested in that debate in Parliament because it is in all of our interests to make sure that the educational opportunities of young people are fulfilled as a consequence of the actions that we take. Alison Harris, to be filled by Rona Mackay. Minister, on behalf of parents, could you just clarify whether those tests, as you have previously described them in P1, are tests as we have known them to be? And where do they stand in the context of the Scottish Government being able to decide whether Scottish schools' attainment has actually improved? The first thing is that those tests are called Scottish national standardised assessments, and they are not tests, but assessments of the educational issues and experience of young people that are then used to inform enhancements to learning and teaching practice. That is their purpose. From those assessments, teachers will make a judgment about whether a young person has reached early level, first level, second level or third level. It is that information that flows into the performance framework that I talked about in my answer to Liz Smith, which will determine whether or not we are closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Teachers' judgment informs the decision about whether a young person has reached a particular level, and the standardised assessments will assist teachers in forming a judgment that is consistent across the country. Rona Mackay, to be filled by Mary Fee. Does the cabinet secretary have any information or plans to gather information regarding how confident schools are in dealing with situations where parents or carers have concerns about their child taking part in those assessments? Is there any guidance for teachers from the Government and the best way to approach that? The Government has made available guidance to individual schools, which sets out that the assessments should be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the educational experience of young people at schools. On P1 assessments, for example, the assessments should be undertaken as part of a routine approach to learning. I have seen some assessments that have been undertaken that are consistent with the use of iPad technology in classrooms, which for P1 pupils is a relatively routine element of the educational experience. Teachers were deploying those assessments in exactly that fashion. Obviously, if a parent is in any way concerned about their young person's experience with the standardised assessment, my advice, as it has been consistently, is that they should raise those issues directly with individual schools. As I demonstrated with the data that I set out to Parliament, 94 per cent of possible assessments have been undertaken. The teacher judgment is being deployed to ensure that assessments are not being undertaken where it is not appropriate for a young person to undertake that assessment. That is as relying as we should do on the appropriate judgment of teachers. Mary Fee, followed by George Adam. When discussing the pedagogic method in the education committee this morning, Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of the EIS, said that, if we spent half the time and energy on promoting formative assessment practice in our schools, then we have spent promoting the Scottish national standardised assessments, we would be in a much better place in terms of assessment practice in our schools. Given Mr Flanagan's comments, does the cabinet secretary not agree that more support and resourcing should be given to teachers to use the pedagogic method rather than testing? Scottish national standardised assessments are formative assessments. That is what they are. They are designed to inform teacher judgment. If they were the other type of assessments, they would be summative, and if they were summative, they would be high-stakes testing. That is not what they are. That is the fundamental point that those assessments contribute to teacher judgment and teachers have been supported to deploy those assessments effectively in the classroom across Scotland. George Adam, followed by Oliver Mundell. Can the cabinet secretary outline how often assessments like those were used previously? If, as he mentioned in his statement, the majority of councils were doing their own assessments previously, was that leading to different councils using different assessments and therefore creating an unclear picture of attainment levels across the country? Obviously, different forms of assessment will apply different standards. What is the key point about Scottish national standardised assessments is that they are aligned with curriculum for excellence levels. Curriculum for excellence levels are the judgments that I just answered to Alison Harris about whether we are closing the poverty-related attainment gap as part of a wider suite of information. We need to have teacher judgment informed by those assessments to ensure that we have consistent standards across the country so that whether a young pupil is going into a school in Paisley in Mr Adam's constituency or going into one in Perth in my constituency, we are operating to the same standards so that we can constantly see that we are delivering a system that is driven by the values of excellence and equity for all in all parts of the country. Oliver Mundell will be followed by Clare Adamson. I wondered if the cabinet secretary could set out what he thinks are the exceptional circumstances where it would not be in a child's best interest to do so. I know that he places high importance on teacher judgment, but given that teachers and parents did not ask for those tests, it would be useful to know some examples. Also, if any assessment has been made of the 6 per cent who have not taken part this year to understand why not. Mr Mundell put forward the proposition that teachers and parents had not asked for those assessments. Can I remind him that the Conservative Party did that? It has rather been missed in this whole debate. The Conservative Party was arguing for a considerable amount of time that we needed standardised assessments across the country. Mr Mundell is saying not for P1. He obliges me to say that when the First Minister set out the programme for government in 2015, she said that we will introduce new national standardised assessments for pupils in primaries 1, 4 and 7 and in the third year of secondary school. In response to that statement by the First Minister, Ruth Davidson said this, I am pleased that our repeated and sustained calls for standardised assessments to be introduced in schools have been heeded. The Conservative Party in its manifesto in 2016 said, over the last Parliament, we have pushed the SNP to accept standardised testing for pupils. I do not think that Mr Mundell is in a strong position to say to me that nobody wanted those things because his party actually argued for them. Having said all of that, I think that it is important that teachers are left free to exercise the professional judgment in whether it is appropriate for a pupil to be involved in standardised assessments. The data that I have shared with Parliament today makes it clear that, in 6 per cent of the possible cases, that judgment was exercised and pupils did not participate. We will assess. We can certainly have a look at that 6 per cent and see what underlies it, but it demonstrates that the necessary flexibility that should be in a system of this type to respond to the circumstances of individual children and young people is implicit in the system. I welcome the statement from the cabinet secretary and particularly the commitment to ensure that the voices of our young people are being heard. Can the cabinet secretary expand a little bit on when the primary one practitioner improvement forum will be established and what work it will carry out? We will establish that during this school year to make sure that we understand and appreciate and respond to the issues that are raised by P1 practitioners in their experience. Obviously, there has been a lot of experience in the first year. I have set out a number of changes as part of the statement today, which we have made recognising the experience that took place in the first year of operation. My mind is not at all closed to making further changes if they are required in response to practitioner feedback. I would be happy to engage with Members of Parliament on exactly how we take that forward to make sure that any improvements and enhancements that we can make are improvements and enhancements that the Government takes forward. Thank you very much. I am afraid that that is all that we have time for on the statement. We have already run five minutes over. I apologise to Johann Lamont and Willie Coffey. We will be able to hear their questions. We will move on now to a continuation of our debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government. I invite members to wish to speak this afternoon to press their request to speak buttons now.