The boss of Scotland's education body has rejected criticism claiming that it suffers from a conflict of interest.
Teachers and other education experts have complained that Education Scotland helps both to shape the school curriculum and inspect it.
But chief executive Dr Bill Maxwell told MSPs there are "huge advantages" of having the two functions connected.
He was challenged on the agency's role as he gave evidence to Holyrood's Education Committee.
Conservative MSP Liz Smith and Labour's Daniel Johnson said experts, including the EIS teaching union, had made allegations that the inspection regime is "overly close to government" and Education Scotland's "proximity precludes you from providing objective advice to government".
Asked by Ms Smith if he accepts there is a conflict of interest caused by having inspection and development functions in a single organisation, Mr Maxwell said: "No I don't accept that criticism, and fundamentally all the functions that we contain within the organisations are about improvement.
"What I think sits underneath that is a bit of a misunderstanding about who develops the curriculum fundamentally, because Education Scotland does not go off on its own and develop and produce policy on the curriculum.
"Indeed policy on the curriculum is a very collective effort."
Ms Smith said: "There doesn't seem to me to be very many countries around the world where the inspectorate is part of the same body that is developing the curriculum."
Mr Maxwell replied: "I would argue there are huge advantages of having the two better connected."
He added: "I think there are healthy synergies and there is no real conflict of interest that has arisen in practice."
Pressed further on the issue by Labour member Johann Lamont, who asked how Education Scotland could give an honest assessment of what's happening in schools if it has also been involved in advocating for education policy, Mr Maxwell said: "It is vital that we report what we are actually seeing on the ground."
Inspectors work under a "strict code of practice" to ensure they report "without fear or favour", he added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article