The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 509 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
I am a bit confused about the difference between 2020 and 2021. My understanding is that, in 2020, the grades of state school pupils improved faster than those of pupils at private schools, and then, in 2021, the opposite seems to have happened and we seem to have seen a reverse of the progress in narrowing the gap that we saw the year before. Do you have an explanation for that? It is fine to talk about A grades, but, for a lot of young people who are looking to get qualifications and leave school with something meaningful, it just seems a bit odd. I am trying to understand what changed between 2020 and 2021.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
Would you share that information with us, as an example?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
And no one was going to second guess it? It sounds to me as though the process was trying to arrive at the grades you would have expected.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
They are worse than the grades in 2020.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
So, over the year, we have had more time to get the ACM organised and, in that time, people from the most challenging communities have been disadvantaged. Is that the case, or has the system just adjusted back to what we would normally see?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
I understand the logic of that; I just do not think that that was the message that people were getting at a political level or the explanation that we got of how much work had actually gone in. To me, it seemed perfectly logical that ADES was meeting the SQA in October to discuss quality assurance, but the message that was being delivered here politically was a suggestion that the normal SQA processes were somehow not happening and that classroom teachers would be making the decisions by themselves, although I do not think that that is actually what was happening.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
On 22 October, ADES met the SQA separately as part of a joint CAQ network meeting, and the minutes of that meeting show that there appears to have been quite a lengthy discussion about the need for quality assurance and statistical analysis, as well as about the appeals process. Those were separate conversations.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
I want to return to the earlier line of questioning. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education conducted a review of what local authorities were doing in terms of the ACM, and it found that most local authorities had developed bespoke data analysis tools to support school-level quality assurance, which were used to check against three and five-year data trends. That information was then used to identify and address any unexpected provisional grades. Is that your understanding of what happened across the country?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 22 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
Given those comments and the comments from Larry Flanagan, is there a feeling that the SQA was given too much say in the ACM and that really it was trying to introduce its normal methods earlier in the process? That point came up in the earlier evidence session. In the development of the process, was the SQA’s voice stronger than that of classroom teachers, or was the balance right?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 8 September 2021
Oliver Mundell
I had not intended to ask a question, but I was confused by the comments about data sharing. I know that those issues have been kicking about for a while, and I understand them. However, if we put those issues to one side, the number of two-year-olds who are registering has fallen since the programme was introduced, so fewer two-year-olds are benefiting now than when the programme started. Does the minister have an explanation for that?
Also, I hear from local ELC providers that they are actively discouraged from engaging directly with families and that they have to wait for the local authority and others to identify them. They cannot go out into their own communities and publicise the offer. Is that correct?