This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford, 2007), which covered the business of the Parliament's Education Committee between September 2006 and January 2007. The bulletin is presented in two parts: the first covers committee proceedings during the second part of the 2006 - 7 parliamentary year (Session 2, January 2007 to April 2007) and the end of the 2003 - 2007 Parliament; the second the start of the 2007 - 2011 Parliament (Session 3) and the establishment of a new Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee

Redford, Morag

English

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford, 2006b), which covered the business of the Parliament's Education Committee between February and June 2006. This bulletin covers committee proceedings during the first half of the 2006-07 parliamentary year (Session 1, September 2006 until January 2007)

Stirling Online Research Repository

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 39[1])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2010), which covered the education and lifelong learning remit of the Parliament's Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee between September 2009 and February 2010. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee from February to August 2010, during the third session of the Parliament (2007 - 2011)

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 42[2])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2007), which covered the business of the Parliament's Education Committee between February 2007 and August 2008. The bulletin covers the education and lifelong learning remit of the Education and Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, during the first part of the 2007-2011 Parliament (Session 3)

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

83MORAG REDFORDPREAMBLEPurvis and Elizabeth Smith. Full records of the committee meetings, including transcripts of proceedings and all committee papers can be found on the Scottish Parliament website at:www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/education/index.htmThe committee spent some time agreeing their work programme at the beginning of the period. The major items of legislation dealt with were the Free School Meals pilot, the formation of Skills for Scotland, Higher and Further Education Funding and Governance, the Abolition of the Graduate Endowment Scheme and related WORK PROGRAMMEThe committee spent time agreeing their work programme during their  meeting committee work would initially take a different focus from previous committees, as they wanted to hold a series of meetings with stakeholders from across the remit of the committee. The aim of these meetings was to set the context for subjects to During the discussions at the start of this meeting, each member highlighted their own priorities for the parliamentary session: Elizabeth Smith in the governing and summed up the discussion by pointing out that they were keen, “to contextualise matters for future deliberations and to hold shorter sessions to investigate issues of higher education, the curriculum for excellence and school estate. The issues of class sizes and school meals would be considered in relation to secondary legislation.on the Scottish Government’s proposed free school meals pilot from the following witnesses:Date of Committee  Witnesses          Aberlour Child Care TrustChildren in ScotlandMinister for Children & Early Yearsauthority areas: East Ayrshire, Fife, Scottish Borders, Glasgow and West who were not currently receiving free school lunches. The convener asked about and in attitudes to healthy food. The pilot would also provide information about they ways in which school kitchens coped with additional demand. The convener would ensure that children in schools would have to make healthier choices. David that schools were already working towards being health-promoting schools. Aileen to evaluate the trial. Their evaluation would include talking to children and focus groups with parents. Several questions were asked about the 3 year pilot scheme in Kingston upon Hull, the results of which would not be available until November replied that the results would be analysed in relation to existing data on healthy eating: The main focus of the trial is on whether providing free school meals to kids  in primary 1 to primary 3 has a bigger impact than just offering healthy meals  to everyone. All meals in schools will be healthy, but does it make a   85difference if we get kids to use the school meal service at an early stage?  Will they continue to take school meals? We want to see what effect the pilot The committee was concerned about the ways in which the results of the pilot were now implementing Hungry for Success and that would be the baseline for the trial. Ken Macintosh asked if there would be a control study with other local authorities, returning again to the difference between the proposed pilot and the work that was already underway with Hungry for Success. In reply Mike Gibson described the ways in which data would be collected from the participating schools. This would begin with information about the current uptake of free school meals in P1 to P3, which would be revisited at the end of the trial. He argued that it authorities in the pilot with data from other authorities. Ken Macintosh asked if alternatives had been considered and referred to the East Renfrewshire programme which provided free school meals during the school holidays. He talked about the effects of the programme, which “ has produced fantastic outcomes in relation to 86). Mike Gibson replied that the Executive did not collect detailed information provide free school meals for primary 1 to 3 pupils in schools they would consider other measures. Jeremy Purvis then asked about the cost of rolling out the trial  The committee opened the meeting with the second panel of witnesses with organisation in the group evidence outlined their responses to the proposed pilot, which in previous committees had been summarised at the start of each panel. In the eating habits in school and at home, the pupil’s views on school meals, practical issues for schools implementing the pilot and the development of social skills menus and that breakfast clubs and wraparound care would make optimum use of facilities. They felt that there was a need for dining areas that would appeal to Bayes replied that the Aberlour Trust was concerned that the pilot had not waited until the results of the 3 year Hull study were published, particularly since the Hull scheme had to close because of the cost. Tam Baillie, for Barndardo’s felt of the scheme, although he recognised that considerable ground work had been done by the Hungry for Success Initiative. Jeremy Purvis raised the possible costs million. He asked the panel if that money was the best way to tackle healthy eating. Tam Baillie replied that the main issue to address was that of poverty, particularly for free school meals. Paula Evans pointed out that each organisation took a slightly 86 if health promotion is the objective, a universal approach for P1 to P3 is  appropriate. If it is to be a poverty-alleviating measure, a targeted approach Elizabeth Smith raised the issue of diet in pre-school children to which Tam Baillie replied that it would be useful to have a Hungry for Success type of initiative for early years as part of the Government’s early years strategy. procedural issues concerning the fact that parents of the children who could be involved in the trial had received letters about it, but that Parliament had yet to approve it. The Minister argued that the timescale meant that arrangements had to be made for the trial to commence in October, although it had yet to be approved by Parliament. Further questions addressed the evaluation of the trial to which Adam Ingram responded that they knew that the pilot would lead to positive health outcomes, “We are trying to establish the practicalities of rolling out a national that the results of ten of pilot schools would be examined in detail. The focus would be on deprivation and free school meal eligibility, rural schools, the size of the school and previous levels of uptake of school meals. Mary Mulligan followed this with a question about provision for pre-school children and the importance for intervening early to establish good eating habits. Adam Ingram replied that guidance had been issued to pre-schools and nurseries, building on Hungry for Macintosh questioned that the pilot would not give more information about diet and school meals than was already available. Adam Ingram replied that it was a cultural change that was needed across Scottish society and that this pilot would be Ken Macintosh asked how that gap would be removed, to which Adam Ingram then considered the subordinate legislation necessary to implement the pilot. Each committee member took the opportunity to express their own issues with regard to the pilot school meals proposal before voting. The motion was agreed to (by Government’s Skills Strategy from:Date of Committee Witnesses   Scottish Trades Union CongressCabinet Secretary for Education      and Lifelong Learning   a question from Elizabeth Smith about vocational training and the links between colleges and schools. Howard McKenzie replied that the links were, “remarkably pointed out to the committee that although the discussion was focusing on the degree programmes were undertaking vocational courses. He emphasised the need to be aspirational “and encourage people to reach the pinnacle of their ability” emphasised that there was a need to recognise the importance of increasing the impact on entry to degree courses from the Strategy’s focus on vocational subjects. question from Jeremy Purvis about the need for a single skills agency in Scotland. Scotland becoming a freestanding non-governmental body. The committee moved on to discuss the careers support available to students and the type of social and personal skills training available in both sectors. This led to a discussion about the the education system. The panel ended with both witnesses making points about the drop in the participation rate and the need to address those issues when the general population numbers are declining.  In the second panel meeting Grahame Smith talked about the development of a Scottish Union Academy. This had been proposed to facilitate learning between Unions and employers. He went on to outline the view of the Scottish Trade Learndirect Scotland, which they saw, “as a retrograde step to separate economic that the Government needed to address skills discrimination in the workplace, particularly where employers do not provide or support training.  The third panel began with a statement from Fiona Hyslop about the skills strategy, where she announced:  That the skills and training responsibilities in the enterprise networks that  focus on individuals’ employability, skills and training will also be merged Elizabeth Smith began by asking about the connections between the core skills learning framework. Ken Macintosh asked how the strategy would be moved forward following the defeat of the Government’s proposal. Fiona Hyslop replied that the strategy had received a positive reception from business and education, and 88the government was keen to drive the strategy forward. Further questions from Ken moved to Local Authorities. Fiona Hyslop replied that the Government wanted “to streamline the provision of learning, training and skills to create, a one-stop shop,” from:Date of Committee Witnesses   Scottish Funding Council   National Union of Students Scotlandwelcoming Howard McKenzie back to the committee. Initial questions from Jeremy Purvis and Rob Gibson concerned governance, and the issue of debt only one college now left with a loan burden because of losses, adding that the mortgages used to fund capital projects were an increasing cost for colleges. In discussion moved on to charitable status, which colleges were due to lose. Howard McKenzie was forthright in his description of the issues colleges face in losing charitable status: Losing charitable status would have a radical effect on colleges not only  have to cut that amount from front-line services—but in how we are seen  within our communities. We are not businesses that make money and give it  back to our shareholders; we do our activity and give that back to the people He went on to outline the unanimous feeling in colleges that they need to retain charitable status. He described the ways in which this could be done, through removal of existing ministerial powers. The discussion moved from charitable statues to the maintenance of college buildings, the graduate endowment fee and unmet demand for college places. Howard McKenzie referred again to the fact that people a year in Scotland apply for two or three courses, do not receive a place 89ended this section of the meeting by asking what the government could do to help the colleges, Howard Mckenzie was very clear that removing the cap on numbers would be the greatest help.drew the committees’ attention to the issue of part-time students, who constitute undergraduate students. Ken Macintosh then asked about the relationship with Professional regulatory bodies, such as the Law Society for Scotland which led to a admitted to degree programmes. Rob Gibson ended the discussion with a question Universities were not resistant to mergers: There is a genuine desire in universities to do whatever we can to ensure that  we remain internationally competitive, including restructuring if it achieves He ended by reiterating the point made to the committee on his previous visit that there was a need to raise aspirations among everyone in Scotland to achieve their full attainment.this witness focused on governance and the allocation of funds to colleges and universities. Elizabeth Smith raised the issue of competiveness and the need for the funding of research but there was a need to ensure that appropriate funding belief in the need for higher knowledge and skills levels in the future then there was a need for a major improvement in investment, adding that other small countries Alexander, president of the National Union of Students Scotland. The questions part-time students and the need to recognize the diversity of the student body.The committee agreed their approach to Stage 1 of the Graduate Endowment Date of Committee Witnesses         Student Awards Agency for Scotland    National Union of Students Scotland Coalition of Higher Education     Students in ScotlandCabinet Secretary for Education      and Lifelong Learning part of a wider government policy to reduce student debt. In response to questions had shown that student debt, “is one of the biggest contributors to people not Gibson asked about any possible effect on the provision of bursaries for students and was assured that there would be no impact on bursary provision, which was linked to the existing statute. The discussion then moved onto the issues of widening Bill. The committee went on to discuss the detail of student loan repayments with Ralph Seymour-Jackson in the second panel. where each organisation presenting evidence also submitted papers for the meeting; 91the issues facing part-time students which was a matter of great concern to the Open University in Scotland.  Regardless of the merits of the Bill, when it is passed, students who are classedas full time, whether they are rich or poor, will not pay tuition fees and  students who are classed as part time, whether they are rich or poor, will pay The committee followed these remarks with questions about support systems for opened discussions with the second panel with a question about full-time and part-time students. Both witnesses felt that the traditional distinctions between these groups were becoming blurred as full-time students were increasingly taking on work to fund their studies. James Alexander then listed a number of issues with the current funding system concluding, “we need a wider range of packages to address issues around student hardship, debt and support as well as wider student access” funding problems. Tom Ardenne agreed that there needed to be further measures to ensure that people from all backgrounds were able to access higher and further education.November when they spent some time debating the links between widening participation and the abolition of the graduate endowment. In response to a question statistics of entrants to University, arguing that the proposed Bill would make no difference to the numbers of University entrants from deprived areas. Mary such students, to which Fiona Hyslop replied: We expect that removing or tackling the debt burden will have a substantial regarding the implementation of the Bill and the collection of existing debt.  The committee concluded their work on the Bill in private on the 5th of Amendments  Action taken by the Committee The long titleBUDGETThe committee spent considerable time during this period agreeing their approach creation of Skills Development Scotland and the funding of Further and Higher Education.Date of Committee WitnessesLearndirect Scotland   CollegesScottish Funding Council   COSLACabinet Secretary for Education &      Lifelong Learning was addressing the establishment of the new skills body, which would involve a partnership between Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), Learndirect Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government. Elizabeth Smith questioned the need for a new body, to which Mark Batho replied that the new body offered the merger provided the opportunity, “to direct the high-cost, face-to-face services to 93Mary Mulligan and Rob Gibson concerned the cost of the new organisation and any changes in services. In answer to a detailed question from Jeremy Purvis about support to schools Mark Batho outlined the amounts transferred into grant-aided expenditure to fund the Determined to Succeed programme in schools. Further detailed questions were asked about support to colleges and universities within were submitted by each organisation prior to the meeting. Much of the debate during the meeting centered around committee concern that colleges could again how the colleges operated as a brand to help each other. The committee went on to discuss the ways in which monies were allocated to universities and money that might be available through the block grant from the Westminster Parliament. Final The questions from the committee to both panels of witnesses concerned the detail the policy to reduce class sizes. Mary Mulligan was particularly concerned that an agreement had been made to reduce class sizes without knowing the overall cost. Robert Nicol was keen to point out that, “the package that has been agreed concordat did not say that there would be a reduction in class sizes within the concordat was an overall package of funds and that the local authorities would prioritise how they spent it. Mary Mulligan asked how much of the budget had addressed issues of sustainable economic growth and the effects that would have on education and life-long learning, developing a long-term strategy for Higher Education and the creation of Skills Development Scotland. Final questions for the budget in private. They considered a draft report at their meeting on 13th PETITIONSon the Scottish Government’s plans in relation to policy on school estate management, particularly in relation to any legislative presumption against school committee’s attention to the statement of the First Minister to the Parliament on the Government in relation to the petitions. At that meeting they agreed to keep the schools.petition at their meeting on the 19th of December. Date of Committee WitnessesCabinet Secretary for Education      and Lifelong Learning   This petition had been submitted by Ronnie Smith (General Secretary), on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), to the previous parliament. It called on publicly funded schools during the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament. The welcoming the opportunity to discuss the EIS’s petition on class sizes, which was year’ progress and how the policy would be evaluated. Members were particularly concerned with the situations in their own constituencies. Ken Macintosh pushed asked about the impact of class reductions in relation to the scheme of salaries and conditions of service for teachers. Donald Henderson replied to that question:  agreement on including class size reductions in contracts—the matter was  Different approaches can be taken to the issue, but on neither of the two  most recent occasions when there have been class size reductions has there SUBORDINATE LEGISLATIONThe committee addressed and approved a number of negative instruments during this period:95The committee considered one Sewell motion, a legislative consent memorandum relating to the United Kingdom Government’s Education and Skills Bill, at their Date of Committee WitnessesMinister for Schools and SkillsEnergy and Lifelong Learning   can leave education or training. She pointed out that, although the government was keen to encourage young people to stay in education, they were not considering raising the school leaving age. The reason for introducing the Bill to the committee was to extend to Scotland the it’s provisions in data sharing. The Bill, as proposed, would allow data to be shared between the Department for Work and Pensions, and Families. The data would be used for research purposes only and individuals for the motion. Scottish Educational   

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 40[1])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2010), which covered the education and lifelong learning remit of the Parliament's Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee between February and August 2010. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee from September 2010 to March 2011, completing the third session of the Parliament (2007-2011)

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 43[1])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2011), which covered the education and lifelong learning remit of the Parliament's Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee from September 2010 to March 2011, completing the third session of the Parliament (2007 - 2011). The fourth session of Parliament (2011 - 2016) opened on the 1 June 2011. This paper presents the new members of the Education and Culture Committee and the work they undertook in the first meetings of the new session between June and August 2011

91Redford, Morag (2011) Education in the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Educational Review, 43 (2), 91-94EDUCATION IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTMorag RedfordUniversity of Stirling PREAMBLEThis paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2011), which covered the education and lifelong learning remit of the Parliament’s Education Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee from September 2010 to March 2011, completing the third session of the Parliament (2007 – 2011). The fourth session of Parliament (2011 – 2016) opened on the 1 June 2011. This paper presents the new members RIWKH(GXFDWLRQDQG&XOWXUH&RPPLWWHHDQGWKHZRUNWKH\XQGHUWRRNLQWKH¿UVWmeetings of the new session between June and August 2011.JUNE 2011 - AUGUST 2011The Education and Culture Committee had the following members during this period: Stewart Maxwell (Convener), Claire Baker (Deputy Convener), Clare Adamson, Marco Biagi, Jenny Marra, Joan McAlpine, Liam McArthur, Liz Smith and -HDQ8UTKDUW)XOOUHFRUGVRIWKH&RPPLWWHHPHHWLQJVLQFOXGLQJPLQXWHVRI¿FLDOpapers and transcripts of proceedings can be found on the Scottish Parliament website at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/ellc/meetings.htmThe Committee members have held three meetings since their election to 3DUOLDPHQWLQ0D\$WWKHLU¿UVWPHHWLQJVLQ-XQHWKH\HOHFWHGD&RQYHQHUand Deputy Convener of the Committee and heard presentations from the Scottish Government about their priorities for education and culture. The third meeting was a business planning meeting held by the Committee in private during the summer recess.   DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND CHOICE OF CONVENER7KH&RPPLWWHHKHOGWKHLU¿UVWPHHWLQJRIWKHQHZVHVVLRQRQWKH-XQHThe papers provided new members with information about the declaration of their interests within the remit of the Committee (EC/S4/11/1), choosing a Convener and Deputy Convener (EC/S4/11/2) and the development of the Committee work programme (EC/S4/11/3). The meeting opened with Jean Urqhuart, as the oldest member of the Committee, in the chair. She welcomed members to the meeting and asked for declarations of interest. The following members then made declarations of interest: Clare Adamson as a member of North Lanarkshire Council, Joan McAlpine as the author of a weekly column for The Scotsman newspaper and Jean Urquhart as a member of the Highland Council and member of that Council's Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The Committee then moved on to 92choose the Convener. The chair reminded Committee members that Parliament had agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party were eligible for nomination as Convener of the Education and Culture Committee. Clare Adamson nominated Stewart Maxwell who was chosen as Convener and took the chair of the meeting. The newly chosen Convener then asked for nominations for Deputy Convener, reminding the Committee that Parliament had agree that only members of the Scottish Labour Party were eligible to be chosen as Deputy Convener of the Committee. Jenny Marra nominated Claire Baker who was chosen as Deputy &RQYHQHU7KH&RPPLWWHHHQGHGWKHLU¿UVWPHHWLQJZLWKDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHLUZRUNprogramme for 2011 – 2012. They agreed to hold a business planning meeting GXULQJWKHVXPPHUUHFHVVDQGWRUHTXHVWDEULH¿QJIURPWKH6FRWWLVK*RYHUQPHQWon their priorities relating to the work of the Committee at their next meeting on the 28 June 2012. WORK PROGRAMMEThe Committee took evidence from Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on the 28 June 2011. They then considered their work programme in private and agreed to seek approval for the appointment of an adviser in connection with its budget scrutiny and to consider a list of candidates for that post at their next meeting.Date of Committee Witnesses28 June 2011x Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary  for Education and Lifelong Learning,  Scottish GovernmentThe Convener welcomed the Cabinet Secretary to the meeting and congratulated him on his continuing post. The Cabinet Secretary opened his remarks by reminding the Committee of his vision statement, ‘about improving the life chances of Scotland’s children and young people by improving attainment for all, and by raising and realising ambition for all’ (Russell, 28.06.11, Col 17). He then listed the priority areas for the government, beginning with early years and early intervention, the use of the change fund and the development of a national parenting strategy. He indicated the government’s intention to introduce legislation to ensure that ‘investment in early years is not an optional extra and that the Getting it Right for Every Child approach works throughout Scotland (Russell, 28.06.11, Col 17).   He went on to identify literacy, and language learning, as areas for development in schools. He noted the McCormac review of teacher’s terms and conditions, which would report at the end of August or the start of September 2011. He then indicated that he would be setting out in Parliament reforms for post-16 education, which included a previously announced review of higher education led by Professor von 3URQG]\QVNL/L]6PLWKDVNHGWKH¿UVWTXHVWLRQRIWKH&DELQHW6HFUHWDU\HQTXLULQJabout the timescales for any proposed legislation. Michael Russell replied he intended to work towards legislation on higher and further education within the next 9318 months, with legislation approved in 2012 – 2013 and the new measures in place by 2012 – 2014. Jean Urqhuart followed this with a question about the moratorium on rural school closures announced in May 2011. In reply the Cabinet Secretary listed the closures he had recently called in, or been asked to rule on: I have called in the two closures in Shetland, and I refused to allow Aberdeenshire Council to close two schools last week. I have called in the decision on Robslee primary school, and I think that one or two others are pending call-in (Russell 28.06.11, Col 19).Claire Baker moved the questions back to higher education and asked for more information about the European Union service charge. Michael Russell declined to provide the information as he would be presenting the information to Parliament. The discussion then turned back to rural schools, with Liam McArthur asking about closures happening when there was community support for the closure. In reply Michael Russell gave the example of Pinwherry primary school in South Ayrshire, where the children were moving to a new school and the community was in agreement with the closure of the old primary school. Joan McAlpine asked the Cabinet Secretary about arrangements to monitor the attainment outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence (CFE). In reply Michael Russell outlined the assessment work supported by Education Scotland and the statistics, which are published twice-yearly. He concluded his statement with an offer to the Committee to visit schools, ‘to see CFE in action and talk to the profession’ (Russell 28.06.11, Col 23). Marco Biagi followed this with a question about the relationship between the government and the teaching unions over the implementation of CFE. In reply the secretary said that there was a strong FRPPLWPHQWLQWKHFODVVURRPWR&)(EXWWKDWµ,WLVDOZD\VGLI¿FXOWWRLQWURGXFHDmajor reform if, at the same time, there is downward pressure on resources,’ (Russell 28.06.11, Col 23). The discussion then moved to the college sector and the issue of compulsory redundancies, with Jenny Marra asking Michael Russell about his policy of no compulsory redundancies. In reply he said he had suggested to the colleges in March 2011 that they apply a policy of no compulsory redundancies, but that not all colleges had achieved that. He went on to say how surprised he had been that there were over 40 different agreements on terms and conditions in the sector, and that he had urged colleges to move towards one set of national terms and conditions.   He said that he would be providing further information in his statement to Parliament about the need for, ‘a more rational map of provision’ (Russell 28.06.11, Col 25). Clare Adamson turned the questions back to CFE and asked the Cabinet Secretary what the government intended to do to inform the business community about CFE. Michael Russell replied that the business community was fully supportive of CFE and the WLPHWDEOHIRUQHZTXDOL¿FDWLRQV7KHTXHVWLRQVWKHQPRYHGWRIRFXVRQWKH0F&RUPDFreport on teacher’s pay and conditions, with Liz Smith asking about the government timescale for assessing the report. Michael Russell replied: It is my intention to respond to that as promptly as I can, but the report will then be fed in to the SNCT process, so any recommendations in the report on changing terms and conditions would require to be negotiated through that process. That is the means by which teachers' terms and conditions are set (Russell 28.06.11, Col 27).94The meeting ended with a question from Liam McArthur about the government priority to improve language teaching in schools. In reply Michael Russell talked about the introduction of the Barcelona scheme, where over the next 13 years:   . . . . as children go from primary 1 to sixth form, they will acquire a knowledge of their own language plus a working knowledge of two others. The degree of NQRZOHGJHZLOOYDU\6RPH\RXQJSHRSOHZLOOWDNHDQRWKHUODQJXDJHWRÀXHQF\RUDOPRVWWRÀXHQF\VRPHZLOOVLPSO\EHDEOHWRRUGHUDFRIIHHLQ6SDLQ/DWYLDRUwherever they choose to go (Russell 28.06.11 Col 28).WORK PROGRAMMEThe Committee discussed the role of the Committee’s European Union Reporter at their second meeting on the 28 June 2011. This was supported by a SPICe paper which outlined the European Union issues for the Education and Culture Committee (EC/S4/11/2/3), and a note from the clerk explaining that the role was introduced towards the end of the third session of Parliament (EC/S4/11/2/2).   The Convener reminded the Committee that the European Union had no legislative remit in education or culture and proposed that the Deputy Convener took the role. The Committee agreed and appointed Claire Baker MSP to serve as its European Union Reporter.SUBORDINATE LEGISLATIONThe Committee took evidence, debated and approved the following subordinate legislation related to education and lifelong learning during this period: Education Maintenance Allowances (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI2011/261).REFERENCESRedford, M. (2011) Education in the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Educational Review, 43(1),  86-105Scottish Government (2006) Getting it Right for Every Child, Implementation Plan. Online at  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/22092413/0 (accessed 18/03/11)

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 43[2])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2012), which covered the education remit of the Parliament's Education and Culture Committee between September 2011 and January 2012. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education and Culture Committee from February to August 2012

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 44[2])

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 39[2])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2013), which covered the education remit of the Parliament's Education and Culture Committee between September 2012 and January 2013. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education and Culture Committee from February to July 2013

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 45[2])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2013), which covered the education remit of the Parliament's Education and Culture Committee between February and June 2013. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education and Culture Committee from September 2013 to January 2014

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 46[1])

This paper follows on from the previous bulletin (Redford 2012), which covered the education remit of the Parliament's Education and Culture Committee between February and June 2012. The following bulletin covers the same remit of the Education and Culture Committee from September 2012 to January 2013

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 45[1])

http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/20316/1/Scottish%20Ed%20Rev%2042_2%202010.pdf

Education in the Scottish Parliament (Parliamentary Report 39[2])

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)