Presiding Officer, I apologise that I had to leave the chamber briefly during the summing-up speeches.
I thank the Conservative Party for devoting some of its time this afternoon to wellbeing in Scotland’s schools, and to behaviour in particular. The breadth of the issues that are covered in the motion and the amendments, including the Government’s, means that we have not been able to fully do the topic justice this afternoon. However, in the coming weeks, subject to parliamentary agreement, there will be a full debate in Government time on the impact of poverty in our classrooms, and I look forward to that as another opportunity to speak to some of the issues in more detail. Nevertheless, today’s debate has been hugely important.
I will touch on a number of the points that members made in the debate, although I am conscious that time is short. Miles Briggs was absolutely right to say that our schools have changed post pandemic, and that change has partly informed the changed behaviours that we see in schools. I was pleased to hear that Miles Briggs attended his local EIS event last night. As we heard from Mr Rowley during the debate, I attended my event in Glenrothes last Thursday, where I listened to the views of mums and dads, carers and EIS members. They were very clear about the need for more resource, more staff and more investment. That is why the Government’s draft budget proposes an additional £41 million to support teacher numbers and £29 million for additional support needs as extra investment in our schools.
Miles Briggs spoke to there being no data on changed behaviour patterns post Covid. That somewhat negates the behaviour in Scottish schools research that was published in November 2023, which looks at data from nearly 4,000 staff across the country. There are also other data sets that he could consider, including the survey of more than 8,000 children that was carried out by HM Inspectorate of Education in Scotland, which looked at bullying in our schools.
I turn to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points, a number of which were very relevant and pertinent to the issues that we are discussing today—in particular, reduced class contact. It may please the member to know that I met the teaching trade unions on that matter just yesterday. They have a requirement for the Government, working with local authorities, to table a suggestion to move forward on meaningful progress, which is part of the deal that we struck with local government ahead of the budget. That will be done in advance of the 3 February deadline that they have set. I very much welcome the trade unions’ engagement on that matter, because reducing class contact and teacher workload is part of the solution to some of the challenges that we have talked about today.
Ms Duncan-Glancy also spoke—rightly—to the worrying increase in misogyny in recent years. We see that borne out not only in the evidence from trade unions, but in our behaviour in Scottish schools research. I am grateful to the member for her suggestion in relation to the Mind Yer Time web resource. That is funded by the Scottish Government, with £170,000 of support going directly to the Scottish Youth Parliament, so I am glad that the member welcomes that investment from the Government.
Ross Greer, too, spoke about the experience of women and girls with regard to sex education, and he was right to raise consent as an issue. I accept that the update to the relationships, sexual health and parenthood guidance has taken too long, but I am glad that we will be able to publish it shortly, as I confirmed to Mr Greer only yesterday.
I agree with Mr Rennie’s comment that it is too early to judge whether the national action plan has had an influence. However, I put it on the record that, as I think the Government’s amendment makes clear, we will provide the Parliament with an update on the plan in March and set out the range of measures that have been taken forward.
Mr Rennie was also right to say that understanding cases individually should not necessarily negate consequences for adverse behaviour in our schools. I agree with him on that point. Over the past year, we have discussed consequences in our schools at length in the chamber. It is currently the case that young people will face consequences in their schools, but that depends on the behaviour management policy that exists. Mr Rennie spoke to the importance of school management, and I very much agree with him on the need to support staff with regard to how those behaviour management policies are taken forward. That is another reason why the national action plan is crucial, as it will drive more consistency across the country in how schools advocate for policies and enact the consequences that we have talked about today.
Bill Kidd spoke about the need to listen to pupils, and he was absolutely right on that point.
Various members expressed views about mobile phones. I am sure that all MSPs will be aware of the national guidance in that regard, which was published last August and was broadly welcomed. Mr Rennie was correct to say that, as education secretary, I do not have the power to enforce a national ban, but the national guidance goes as far as I am able to go in setting out our expectations and in empowering headteachers to implement a ban.
At this point, I note that not all headteachers in Scotland want a full ban. I encourage members to engage with and speak to their local headteachers. When I launched the guidance, I went to Stonelaw academy and spoke to the headteacher there about the process that they had undertaken. They got the young people to mine their data and look at the way in which they interacted with their phones—at their screen time, for example. They got buy-in from parents and from the community, but that approach took time. A ban is not a simple step, and we need to be mindful that there would be other consequences of having a national ban—