Chamber and committees

NASUWT Submission for Alternative Certification Model

Submission from NASUWT

Introduction

1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Education, Children and Young People Committee Inquiry in to the Alternative Certification Model (ACM) 2021.

2. The NASUWT is the teachers’ union, representing teachers and school leaders in all sectors of education.
National 4 deadline

3. The National 4 submission deadline presented significant challenges. The original deadline was 20 March 2021 and whilst the extension to 4 June may have been intended to alleviate some difficulties, it must also be considered in the appropriate context: the 20 March deadline became impossible as a result of a second lockdown. Although there were processes to extend this deadline further, they were not straightforward and could not be adopted wholesale.

4. Teachers were under enormous pressure and strain to provide National 4 results: the operational reality in schools was that 28 May, or earlier, was a completion deadline to allow data returns to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) before 4 June 2021. There was little acknowledgement from the SQA of the negative impact of the situation upon teachers, given the cumulative burden of bureaucracy, confusion around procedures, truncated deadlines and an unachievable workload. It is critical that the significant difficulties flowing from system-level decisions are acknowledged and recognised as having a serious detrimental impact on the wellbeing of young people, as well as teachers.

5. A typical approach in many schools is to give pupils an opportunity to achieve an award for the National 5 course, failing which, to give them an opportunity at the National 5 unit. Only if they do not achieve these are they then switched to the National 4 course, this being an aspirational model that has pupils' best interests at heart. Having the National 4 deadline several weeks before the National 5 one in this context was illogical. As the following teacher comment succinctly sets out, there were significant logistical challenges in meeting the National 4 deadline:

‘Their deadlines are set up to suit themselves but without any understanding of the constraints teachers are working with in schools. National 5 students failing “Assessment Gathering” exams (which a simply SQA Exams administered in schools) are then required to complete Unit assessments to gain Unit assessment passes. If they fail the first attempt at these, they are entitled to a resit. If they then fail the resit at National 5, they then have to sit unit assessments at National 4 level (with a corresponding resit). I am sure you can see why teachers have concerns, as this whole process is expected to be completed in a three-four-week window at best.’

6. The NASUWT repeatedly called on the SQA to look again at the National 4 deadline in light of the information provided above: flexibilities for exceptional circumstances did not address the whole-scale system-wide challenges.

Timeframes

7. Local authority quality assurance procedures, while necessary, led to earlier deadlines for submission of grades: the precise deadlines did vary between authorities. Simultaneously, schools and local authorities were required to spend time preparing explanations and meeting with Education Scotland staff to explain their quality assurance processes, which was time-consuming and was not felt to be wholly productive by those who participated. Teachers voiced frustrations that Education Scotland, while enquiring about the actions taken to avoid over-assessment, were unable to adequately define ‘over-assessment’. The result of all this compression is that while each level of management takes its chunk of time to allow for quality assurance, teachers in schools faced an almost impossible task to complete all of the assessment, quality assurance and certification in the very short timeframe left available to class teachers and departmental managers.

8. The one commodity which teachers cannot manufacture is time. This situation was exacerbated by the adoption of double blocks of learning time in some local authorities, and corresponding two-week learning cycles, which mean that in week one you may see a class for one double-session block, but in week two you may see the same class for three double-session blocks. If you have a bank holiday and an in-service training (INSET) day, then a teacher may end up seeing senior phase classes only one block out of the three. If the pupils were not physically sitting in front of you, it was not possible to assess them, especially considering that the pupils may have 12 or 15 other assessments in a variety of other subjects.

Flexibility

9. Much was made publicly of the 'flexibility' in the system by the SQA and the National Qualifications Group, but to what extent did this flexibility exist?

10. Senior phase classes missed out on their normal start to the new timetable in May/June 2020 as the country was still in lockdown, meaning that teachers and pupils were playing 'catch up' in National Qualifications courses from the very beginning. While the SQA National Qualifications Group eventually addressed this by making changes to courses, by the time these decisions were made, many teachers had already taught the parts of the course which were then withdrawn, nullifying any potential benefit.

11. As a result of the circumstances in the first half of the academic year, the opportunity to prepare pupils to a level where they could attempt any type of formal assessment before Christmas under conditions which would provide evidence of 'demonstrated attainment' were extremely limited and, many would argue, impossible. It was not recognised in the political narrative that it would not have been possible for many subjects or teachers to be able to use assessment materials from earlier in the year.

12. At the start of 2021, we entered a second lockdown, where the emphasis was rightly on teaching and learning, rather than assessment, and this message was reinforced for the initial return to school shortly before Easter in Blended Learning.

13. In reality, therefore, the only possible period for the gathering of evidence for most subjects was from the return in mid-April. In most cases, teachers were directed to gather such evidence in timed assessments, using unseen papers in controlled conditions: in other words, examination conditions. For example, this applies to all of the Maths courses and 70% of the National 5/Higher English courses. These subjects, of course, account for most of the presentations for awards by some distance and, therefore, affect all pupils.

14. It is therefore understandable why claims of flexibility in gathering evidence appeared hollow to the teaching profession and were indeed unachievable for most teachers in the majority of subjects.

Business as usual approach

15. While there was significant variation in practices across Scottish schools, the NASUWT strongly advocated against any move to progress with normal timetable changes in secondary schools: a 'business as usual' approach was not appropriate.

16. Feedback from teachers confirmed that forcing through early timetable changes created an impossible workload burden, and there were no clear answers on how all these competing and conflicting demands on the finite teaching resources should be managed. Adding to this already overloaded the system, and the challenges of supporting on-site transitions left the profession wondering whether there was any real understanding of the current reality in schools.

17. Not only were teachers facing an insurmountable task, but so too were pupils. The Scottish Government’s rhetoric on mental health and wellbeing would have been cold comfort to pupils facing an onslaught of assessments. In order to facilitate this programme of assessments, Pupil Support Assistants (PSAs) and extra teaching time was diverted, which also had a knock-on effect on the support which would otherwise be available for Additional Support Needs (ASN).

Clarity of advice

18. The SQA guidance, under stage 3 'role of a teacher', stated that teachers should:

‘provide ongoing feedback to learners regarding their progress and assessments, including, at the conclusion of the course, provisional grades based on evidence of demonstrated attainment’.

19. The Union was clear that it expected schools and local authorities to protect teachers from pressure to change the provisional grades and, further, that guidance should make it clear that the professional judgement of the teacher should not be questioned at this stage. There would, of course, need to be arrangements for candidates to have a right of redress in cases where there have been genuine errors in awarding. The NASUWT communicated with the SQA its expectation that, as a regulator, the SQA should deter negative and inappropriate behaviours from parents/pupils and, further, believes that it is incumbent upon the Scottish Government and other national bodies such as the SQA to take responsibility and provide clearer explanations to local authorities and teachers.

20. Sadly, a lack of central clarity around issuing feedback raised concerns among the profession regarding both security and potential malpractice. Teachers were uncertain whether they should be sharing interim marks with students, as they complete each section of the SQA-provided assessment, if they had split a paper as per the SQA guidance. There was considerable variation on the ground in terms of sharing marks with students who had completed an initial assessment window and an absence of clear advice on whether teachers should or should not refrain from reviewing the assessment paper with the student as part of the feedback process. Teachers were navigating new processes, under extreme pressure, and a lack of precision in the information provided centrally left already fraught teachers feeling stressed and anxious in case they were inadvertently leaving themselves open to accusations of malpractice.

Change of direction

21. On 10 May 2021, a statement was issued on behalf of the National Qualifications 2021 Group. Whilst the effort therein to take account of disruption to learning was broadly welcome (i.e. a Contingency Arrangement for Incomplete Assessment Evidence), the decision to extend the deadline for submission of grades to September for some pupils felt like a knee-jerk response to a systemic crisis which, instead of solving the crisis, risked piling more workload onto pupils and teachers over the summer, thereby disrupting the new term before it had even begun.

22. Stating that 'Further guidance will be developed... in due course' at a late stage caused more angst for teachers and pupils alike. Changing guidelines that schools have been working over a number of months in the middle of the assessment period would be challenging at the best of times, but even more so when the changes were more likely to increase teacher workload. Ultimately, it was teachers who would have to navigate the considerable pressure from parents seeking exemptions and exceptional circumstances.

23. The NASUWT considered that rather than tinkering around the edges of a disastrous ACM and citing a level of flexibility in the system which did not exist, a swift decision should have been made to allow teacher judgement to be placed at the centre of this process and enable teachers to have genuine flexibility in reaching those decisions. This may have meant the adoption of some form of the arrangements that were in place for 2020 as the only practical solution to these issues. While these arrangements were by no means perfect, they perhaps represented the only practical option for addressing the profound difficulties that the ACM caused and, on balance, would have addressed the challenges created by the cancellation of normal arrangements more effectively than the ACM.

Knock-on impact

24. We have already seen an impact this session, following the decisions made under the ACM, and there are numerous ways in which it continues to detrimentally impact education. Some schools did not change their timetable in May/June, which means that their pupils are potentially further behind than others in terms of their study of 2021/22 National Qualifications.

25. The significant levels of pupil and teacher absence since the return in August has further added to teacher workload, through covering for absent colleagues, including preparing work for their classes, and being asked to post work for absent pupils on digital platforms while still teaching a full timetable. It will have also likely affected the progress of some pupils on National Qualifications courses.

26. A key question remains unanswered, and that is at what stage do the SQA and Scottish Government decide that the level of disruption necessitates a change in approach to National Qualifications this year? And what data will be used to inform such a decision? Openness and transparency of decision-making and providing sufficient detail to the profession are essential. The SQA guidance has so far said:

‘To prepare for this scenario, teachers and lecturers should — as they would in a normal year — gather examples of learners’ work and keep a record of any assessments that take place throughout the session; for example, prelims, practical performances or class tests that provide an appropriate degree of challenge, integration and application of the key knowledge and skills of each National Course.’

27. The Union was concerned that unless schools were given clearer guidance about what they will need to collect, they may feel pressure to generate, gather and assess an excessive amount of evidence 'just in case' it is required. It is helpful to some extent for the SQA to most recently have commented that for 2021/22:

‘Under this approach, there is no requirement for schools, colleges and training providers to run additional assessments. Doing so would place excess workload on teachers, lecturers and learners. Provisional results would be based on in-year assessments that normally take place during the school year such as prelims, practical activities, performances and class tests.’

28. However, it is important to recognise that if local authorities and schools ignore this guidance, we would look to the SQA and the Scottish Government, perhaps through Education Scotland using its inspection powers, to intervene directly to put matters right where unacceptable practices are being adopted. One of the challenges last year was that there did not appear to be any effective oversight of the ways in which local authorities were undertaking their responsibilities, and there was some variation in practice that was difficult to explain or justify. In the event the examinations are cancelled in 2021/22, it will be important that more effective steps are taken to intervene in the case of local authorities and schools that impose excessive and unnecessary additional burdens on staff.

What now?

29. The NASUWT remains clear that it is important that lessons are learned in the longer term from the experiences of awarding qualifications in 2020 and 2021.

30. Following the controversies over the awarding of qualifications in Scotland in 2020, the Scottish Government commissioned Professor Mark Priestley of the University of Stirling to lead an independent review of the awarding process. Considerable reflection is now needed on whether the recommendations and outcomes of that review from 2020 have indeed influenced the direction of travel in 2021.

31. An issue the NASUWT has consistently raised is the lack of collaboration and engagement from the SQA. The Union had hoped, given the controversies caused by the decisions made in 2020, that the SQA would recognise the need to become more inclusive of other stakeholders. While informal dialogue continues with the SQA, the NASUWT remained excluded from the SQA’s National Qualifications 2021 Group, suggesting that the SQA and the Scottish Government are continuing with their selective approach to engagement from stakeholders.

32. The Union has been clear that there must be public and political accountability for all those involved in the decision-making process, including the SQA, Scottish Government and Ministers. The Cabinet Secretary for Education announcement on 22 June 2021 of the intention to replace the SQA and consider a new specialist agency for both curriculum and assessment while also taking forward reform to Education Scotland, including removing the function of inspection from the agency, was welcomed. The Scottish Government needs to grasp this opportunity to develop a genuinely collegiate approach going forwards, ensuring these reforms are not a cosmetic exercise and that the perspective of the classroom teachers is placed at the heart of any reform.

33. It is also important that the Scottish Government’s decision to replace the SQA does not create more uncertainty for students and teachers in the short term, otherwise it may significantly impact the process of awarding qualifications in 2022.

34. Students, teachers and school leaders have worked extremely hard to secure this year’s results in the face of unique and hugely difficult circumstances. School staff deserve recognition of the huge pressures and additional workload they have faced. Young people also deserve praise for the tenacity they have shown in dealing with the huge uncertainties and anxieties of the last 18 months. Whilst schools have done a tremendous job in picking up the pieces caused by the failures of Ministers and the SQA, many teachers were left running on empty, with teacher workload at a breaking point at the end of last term. We cannot afford a repeat of this confusion and chaos for yet another year. It will be essential to ensure that the workload burdens associated with the ACM are not replicated in 2022, irrespective of whether such burdens arose from deficiencies of national advice and guidance or from the local implementation.

35. The NASUWT is clear that a robust, fully-funded recovery programme to repair the damage caused to the mental health and wellbeing of teachers and pupils who are suffering the consequences of an ill-thought-out ACM must be a priority of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, in an emergency motion to Scotland Conference 2021, the following asks of the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities were made:

a. provision of additional supply staff to schools to alleviate excess workload;

b. provision of additional in-service days to allow staff to undertake work which has been displaced by the burdens associated with the ACM;

c. a robust, fully-funded recovery programme to repair the damage caused to the mental health and wellbeing of teachers and pupils;

d. realignment of the role of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) in schools to that of a genuinely supportive partner;

e. a formal review of the whole approach to National Qualifications in 2021 and, where necessary, key decision-makers to be held to account; and

f. a commitment to genuine consultation and engagement with the NASUWT and its members in future.

36. Teachers can support recovery by focusing on their core responsibilities for teaching, leading teaching and learning. In this academic year, it will be critical to ensure that they are not distracted by tasks and activities, either imposed centrally or by their employers, which detract from it.