Additional Support for Learning Project Board minutes: January 2026

Attendees and apologies

• Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)
• SG Supporting Learners’ Team (SG) (CHAIR)
• Scottish Government (SG)
• Education Scotland (ES)
• Association of Directors of Education (ADES)
• Education Institute of Scotland (EIS)
• Children In Scotland
• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE)
• Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists (ASPEP)
• Scottish Government Early Learning and Childcare (SG ELC)
• ADES Early Years Network
• National Autism Implementation Team (NAIT)
• UNISON

Apologies

• Connect
• Grant-Aided Special Schools (GASS)
• SOLACE
• Social Work Scotland

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

The Additional Support for Learning (ASL) Project Board (PB) meeting was chaired by an SG Supporting Learners’ Team official, as the SG and COSLA Chair were unable to attend. The Chair welcomed and thanked members for attending the meeting in person. An overview of the agenda was provided, and members were introduced to the Professional Advisor who would be leading on the agenda item ASL Review.

Apologies were noted and the Chair confirmed that the minutes from the previous meeting had been circulated and received no further comments. These have been uploaded to the group’s website. SG followed up on the action from the previous meeting, where they were to issue the ASL action plan tracker with members.

Review of ASL progress report and action plan

SG led this item. Thanks were given to members who had provided comments on the Progress Report and Action Plan prior to the meeting and were assured that these comments had been collected and would be implemented following the completion of this meeting. As has been done with previous progress reports, the PB would look over each section of the progress report and members were asked to comment throughout the discussion.

SG confirmed that a joint foreword between the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and Councillor Buchanan was still to be drafted, but this could be approved out with the meeting.

Introduction

The introduction reflects the Programme for Government (PfG) commitments made in relation to ASL, the Audit Scotland report and the evidence that went to the Public Audit Committee (PAC) and includes some of the statements and debates that had happened within Parliament within the last eighteen months. The introduction will also include a table to show the percentage of the total actions, and the number of actions completed. Members did not have any comments on the introduction of the Progress Report.

Summary of progress

The summary of progress section covers the progress the PB has made over the last eighteen months under the themes that the report is structured around. The narrative of this was based on the Action Plan tracker and the discussions between members from the bi-monthly meetings. Members were invited to comment on this section.

A member commented on the outstanding actions and questioned how this will be handled in future. There was also question if the “actions complete” could be better explained given the ongoing nature of many of the actions. SG confirmed that they will make clear the ongoing nature of some of the completed actions and ensure the report highlights the successes of the collaborative approach by the PB.

SG was asked about future governance around uncompleted actions. It was noted that no firm decisions on future governance had been taken as yet – particularly as the McManus Review was ongoing. Decisions would be taken once the Review had concluded and would be for incoming Ministers in collaboration with partners.

A member asked if there was a way to link previous completed actions in the report to say how this action conclusion was drawn. SG mentioned concerns over making the report too lengthy or repeating information from previous reports, but links could be included in the final report for readers to use.

A member asked if there will be a children’s and young people version of the progress report, which was confirmed to be released at the same time of the official report and action plan. This led to a member asking if the Children and Young People Inclusion Ambassadors vision statement could be included within the summary, which SG agreed to include.

Theme one – communications

This section sets out the work that has been undertaken by various members of the Board, particularly the work Enquire have led on. This section will also include next steps in line with communications and will highlight the importance of communications and that this will be embedded in all future working pieces. Enquire confirmed they are keen to continue to work with stakeholders to ensure maximum reach of all their work can be achieved.

It was noted by a member that the ASL Network is mentioned in the progress report, but there is little explanation as to who they are and their function and asked if more information could be included on them. A member commented that the ASL Network group has not been used as much as it could have been, especially with engaging with stakeholders and supporting this kind of work. There was discussion between members on the risk of losing good stakeholder connections without the PB, with an example of discussions relating to ASL happening in different groups but not all members being informed of this and able to provide input. Further thought will be given to this issue.

A member asked if there was a way to advertise the communication work Enquire have led on, such as by creating informative posters which could be distributed to schools. Another member highlighted the popularity of podcasts for providing information and asked this option to be considered for future work. A member discussed that there is a difficulty in ensuring local authorities (LA) will update and share information provided online or in school settings, and it may be of benefit to explore routes in how this can be improved upon. Members agreed with this.

Theme 2 – National Measure Framework (NMF)

This section followed a similar format to theme one, in relation to work pieces that had been completed and what the next steps were relating to the NMF. SG noted that they had received comments from members prior to the meeting in relation to some of the language used in this section being overly ambitious and have agreed to amend accordingly. Members were invited to share their thoughts at this time on the section.

A member noted that there is still not a system in place to celebrate the achievements of all children and young people, and while it has not been possible to do within this PB, it has been a good starting point to start thinking on how this can be achieved with the NMF. The member felt it was important for this to be included in the progress report.

A member asked whether the report could outline the intentions for how the data will be used to support change and what the subsequent steps might be. Members were reminded that SG have announced a new programme of data improvement work, which will directly feed into the NMF, which will ensure NMF is progressed together with other aspects of data improvement.  A member suggested that improving engagement with parents, carers, children and young people during HMIE inspections could enrich the data collected to support the NMF, which could help support improvement outcomes.

A member noted that the NMF focuses mainly on education and does not sufficiently capture the broader range of contributions to learners’ achievements that come from multi‑disciplinary support. Members also highlighted ongoing challenges for teachers when trying to engage with multi‑disciplinary partners and emphasised the need for clearer plans on how this will be strengthened. SG acknowledged that the NMF represents just one component of a wider approach to recognising learners' achievements and agreed that this can be explored in greater depth as part of the next steps.

Another member commented that the narrative explaining how the NMF makes a positive difference for learners was not sufficiently clear and that this may be a gap for key audiences. It was suggested s that LAS could help address this by developing and articulating a local narrative, using the NMF as a self‑evaluation tool to support continuous improvement. Members agreed that the next steps section should more clearly outline the respective roles of national and local government, and how data from the NMF will feed into these responsibilities.

Theme 3 – Code of Practice (CoP)

This section outlines the purpose of the work, the progress achieved to date, and the anticipated next steps. It was noted that defining clear next steps remains challenging while the consultation is still to happen, and analysis of the responses will be required before definite next steps can be articulated. There is also the possibility that legislative changes may be required as a result of the updated CoP.

A member highlighted that the CoP update process has taken longer than expected. SG explained that this reflects the significant and detailed work involved in updating the document—work that would not normally be undertaken unless legislative change had occurred. The update has required revisions across a range of policies, with a particular focus on improving accessibility and user‑friendliness rather than implementing substantive legislative changes. As a result, the process has taken additional time to ensure quality.

A member also emphasised that, while the CoP is being updated, the revised document will not resolve existing systemic issues. Members agreed that it is important to manage public expectations and clearly communicate the purpose and limitations of the update.

Remaining actions

This section has four remaining actions that have not been completed at the time of publication. Two of these incomplete actions are in relation to Doran, one relates to Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) and the last action is in relation to Pupil Support Assistants (PSA) in terms of their development and accreditation. The section explains what the actions intended to achieve, what progress has been made at present, and how work will continue on these actions out with the PB.

The Doran strategic actions are long term actions which will continue beyond the term of the ASL PB. Research to inform the Doran commissioning process will not report until Spring 2027. The action relating to GIRFEC is ongoing but the timeline for this work sits out with the ASL PB. The GIRFEC policy team have their own partnership processes in place and are monitoring implementation of this work. The action on PSAs sits with the Education Workforce SG team; it currently does not have a set governance structure for taking the work forward, but work is ongoing with the relevant teams to organise this and the report has been made to support future work which has not been published yet.

There was a question over whether the PSA action could be considered complete, due to ASL PB completing the scope of work they were responsible for, meeting with the workforce colleagues in September 2025 and providing feedback on the current progress. The overall action was not for PB to make decisions on workforce training; however, all members were content for the action to stay as not delivered. A member asked if the report relating to PSA training had been shared with the PB/published. SG confirmed that it had not as yet and it was therefore agreed that the action should remain uncompleted.

Conclusion

This section concluded the report, highlighting next steps such as the ASL Review and the significant amount of work that has been completed by the ASL PB and partners in the five years following the Angela Morgan 2020 review. The conclusion also highlights the difficulties that faced completing some of the actions, making it clear that is not due to a lack of commitment but rather how the actions were created in the first place and in many cases, their ongoing nature. It was noted that at present it is not possible to confirm next steps in relation to ASL policy and governance due to the ongoing McManus Review. Decisions in light of the Review including structures and governance would be for incoming Ministers post election in discussion with partners.

A member felt that the conclusion may be too critical of the overall process, however agreed that criticism of the creation of some actions was valid. A member felt that the report needed to be clearer in what it meant by the use of “education system” given the role of strategic partner beyond education and that this could be made clearer. A member mentioned the need for systemic change rather than a focus of project management within ASL. It was agreed that these were important lessons for the approach to ASL going forward.

A member highlighted that the Morgan review found that staff within education did not have a great understanding of ASL and inclusion, and the work with the ASL PB has encouraged development of new professional learning. However, the next step is encouraging staff to take up these learning opportunities and use them to develop their learning and development in their roles and create a cultural shift into how ASL is approached.

A member was pleased with the honesty in the conclusion and felt this would be refreshing to stakeholders to read but noted that resourcing would continue to be an issue with implementation. Another member felt that there is still a need for legislative change to make real impact within ASL. Members agreed that all learnings from the five years of ASL PB should help shape what will happen next.

The scope of the ASL Review will also be included within the conclusion. Members asked if this part of the conclusion was kept brief to avoid any prejudgements of the ASL Review, which was agreed. Members wanted to reflect in the conclusion clearly that this was not the end of these work streams, and that there is still an openness to working collaboratively on issues relating to ASL, particularly with the more complex parts of ASL that hasn’t been tackled within this style of governance.

SG confirmed that they would write up the conclusion and share this with members for comment after the meeting, to ensure all PB members had opportunity to read it and confirm they are content.

The Chair asked if there were any final comments that members would like to make. Members were content with the discussion and had no further comments.

ASL review

This item was led by Janie McManus, who is leading the review. The ASL Review will be short and sharp and will focus on the wealth of information already in relation to the topic. The ambitions of the review are to provide clarity and evidence informed views of where implementation of ASL provision is working and consider what needs to happen to strengthen delivery where ASL provision is not as robust. The review will also highlight the changing landscape of ASL since the Morgan 2020 review and the creation of the ASL PB.

The review will focus on three areas: the current system conditions in which ASL operates in, the delivery of ASL within schools and the overall experience of this delivery, and a focus on the intentions of policies and how these translate into practice. Stakeholder engagement will be light touch, due to time limitations and the vast amount of information already available. The current intention is for the outcome of the Review to be announced at the ASL Conference, which is being hosted 12 March 2026. Due to the minimal opportunity for consultation, Janie encouraged members to use this time to be involved within the review.

A member noted they were content that this review would not go out to consultation, as they felt this has been done so often in the past with relevant stakeholders that they run the risk of just repeating themselves, when their views are already documented.

A member observed that resourcing is a key strand that could be looked at within the review, as a lack of resource is creating issues with implementation. It was considered that this would be important and pull-out new information, rather than just repeating what is already known. It was confirmed that the review will look at what needs to be the next steps within ASL provision, not just repeat findings. Along with this, a member felt the review should consider why policy and implementation doesn’t always align, which is not always due to a lack of resourcing but a lack of understanding within the workforce. The member noted an example of staff who were receiving professional training being unaware of the basics of inclusion and additional support needs (ASN). The review could look at GIRFEC implementation alongside ASL to see what improvements needs to be made there.

A member felt encouraged to hear that the review has not focused on only one part of ASL but instead would consider it in its entirety. The member felt that the amount of legislation, different plans to support children with ASL and policies is too complex for the workforce to confidently use, and that children and their families get lost within this. They felt it may be of benefit for the review to consider this aspect and look for ways of making the process streamlined. A member agreed with this but felt concerns over the time scale of the review allowing a true look into these bigger systemic issues. The member felt it was best to make clear that this short sharp review will not have resolved current issues, but may require further engagement, which Janie agreed with.

A member asked if the review would include any comparisons to ASL outside of Scotland, which could bring a positive element. Janie confirmed that while the review would be largely focused on Scotland’s education, there may be scope to include some international comparisons – if appropriate. A member agreed and felt that GIRFEC should be highlighted within the review as it has been groundbreaking and can help support areas of implementation gaps. A few members noted that it would be of benefit to understand more about the 43% of children recorded as having an ASN, and to explore a way of having a more general consensus of recording data across the LAs. It is noted that some LAs would like more direction on using plans and recording ASN. This is agreed to most likely be too big of a focus for this review but can be looked at in the future, with consideration of societal and environmental issues that relate to ASN, not just education.

A member mentioned that data from ASL tribunals may be of use to help see implementation gaps or patterns to see which groups of learners are most impacted by current ASL provision. Janie agreed that this data may link back to policy guidance and practices within LAs.

Another member considered that Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) provisions may be of benefit to be explored within the review. There have been previous discussions if there is any correlation between the expansion of ELC and the number of children with ASL, and if there are pedagogy approaches that work better for children with ASL prior to attending primary school that have been explored within ELC. Alongside this, a member considered the transition stages of children moving from ELC to primary school could be reviewed, as there may be a connection between children with ASL and those that have negative transitions. It is unlikely that this review will be able to explore ELC in depth, but what is included in the review may prompt further research.

A member asked if this review would link in with John Wilson’s review – John Wison was appointed as an Independent Professional Adviser by SG to review and recommend future reforms to school-age education. Janie confirmed she will be meeting with John; however, their roles and reviews are different and may not have much overlap.

A member asked what difference this review hopes to achieve for the workforce. Janie wants to explore in the review what impact is needed to make changes that will make a difference to the day-to-day work for staff and pupils, however members have to be mindful that the review is limited in terms of scope and timing.

A member noted that anxiety related absences are increasingly being reported from schools, and it could be of benefit for the review to reflect this. Another member felt that this issue could tie into the work around the Inclusion, Wellbeing and Equalities (IWE) framework.

Janie thanked the members for their discussion and comments, and advised members to reach out directly should they have follow up questions.

Any other business

SG asked the PB to review four actions to ensure they were content to mark these actions as complete. Action LI17 was confirmed to be completed but highlighted that work is still ongoing. Action TP1 the research commission has now been completed and members agreed to close out this action. Action LI23 was confirmed to be completed and has moved onto next stages. Action LI25 has progressed and members agreed to mark as completed.

SG thanked members for their confirmation.

AOB – Final ASL PB

The Chair brought the meeting to a close and confirmed with members that this was the last meeting of the ASL PB. A member asked what was going to follow on from the PB. It was noted that no firm decisions on future governance had been taken as yet. Decisions would be taken once the McManus Review had concluded and would be for incoming Ministers in collaboration with partners.

The Chair thanked members for their input over the years and highlighted the enormous amount of work undertaken and dedication shown by members. While there is more to do it does not diminish the work made by this Board.SG will ensure that members are copied into the final versions off the progress report and action plan, as well as the publication of the ASL review.