Political priorities for education funding
The following article from AHDS General Secretary, Greg Dempster, was published in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland on 25 September 2025.
Political priorities for education funding
Fairly unusually, there are two education focussed Bills progressing through the Scottish Parliament at present and neither of them is led by the Government. Both appear to be positive contributions and most definitely come from deeply held beliefs that their adoption would have a positive impact for pupils.
The first is Daniel Johnson MSP’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. This aims to create statutory guidance and reporting duties for schools based on the recent Included Engaged Involved Part 3 guidance. This Bill is at Stage 1 of the legislative process.
The second is Liz Smith MSP’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. This aims to give all pupils the right to attend a week-long residential outdoor education trip during their school career. This Bill is at Stage 2 of the legislative process.
The first is hard to disagree with, as we all would agree that seclusion and restraint should only be used very sparingly, only in appropriate ways and in exceptional circumstances.
The second is easy to support, as there are definitely benefits to be had from an outdoor learning experience but it is expensive. The purpose of the Bill is to make that experience accessible to all.
Nonetheless, AHDS has very serious reservations about both.
Taking the Restraint and Seclusion Bill first, we are wholly aligned with the intent of the Bill which is to ensure that the restraint and seclusion of pupils is only ever done when there is no alternative. The reporting element of the Bill is about ensuring openness about when such techniques are used to allow scrutiny, learning and appropriate resourcing and policy responses. Mr Johnson is also keen that school staff have detailed guidance and training in relation to de-escalation. However, as it stands, the Bill’s provisions are so broad that the number of situations which would become reportable would not only be an unmanageable bureaucratic burden for schools, but it would also capture all sorts of examples which most would not consider to be seclusion or restraint. The intention of this Bill is sound, but its provisions need to be adapted if it is to achieve its goals. Even with such change, we would have reservations about this Bill progressing due to the projected costs which might be better invested in supporting delivery of existing non-statutory guidance.
Turning to the Residential Outdoor Education Bill. Few would disagree that outdoor learning and residential experiences are in themselves good things. Maybe that is the problem, politically MSPs may feel unable to object to a ‘good thing’. Our objections relate to workability and cost. On workability, the Bill appears to be founded on this statutory entitlement for pupils being delivered without change to terms and conditions for staff – this seems fanciful at best. On cost, the Bill’s Financial Memorandum projects a cost of £20.4-33.9m per year. This is our biggest concern. In addition to a belief that these are conservative cost estimates, it is stunning that our political class can be so out of touch with the realities currently being faced by Scottish education to have allowed this Bill to progress to stage 2.
Surveys from all teaching unions point towards excessive workloads and chronic underfunding for inclusion and ASN. The Audit Scotland report on ASL painted a stark picture about the gaps between policy intention, demand and the resources which have been made available for delivery. The Parliament’s own education committee has highlighted considerable concern about the gap between policy intention and delivery, describing it as intolerable
We understand the motivation for both Bills. With adaption and meaningful co-creation with school leaders and unions, the first could potentially become workable and achieve its goals. The second Bill undoubtedly seeks to introduce a positive entitlement for pupils, but when considering where it sits in funding priorities for schools, it is like suggesting buying new carpets while the roof is falling in.
The lack of attention to the budgetary realities and genuine service pressures facing schools is not a good look as we rush headlong towards an election. If politicians want to earn the trust of the profession, they must listen to unions and prioritise real investment in ASN. Anything less risks placing yet more strain on an exhausted workforce.