Official Report 724KB pdf
The second item on our agenda is an evidence session on the report of the independent review of qualifications and assessment. I welcome Professor Louise Hayward, professor of educational assessment and innovation at the University of Glasgow and chair of the independent review of qualifications and assessment; Professor Ken Muir, honorary professor at the University of the West of Scotland and a member of the independent review of qualifications and assessment group; and Peter Bain, headteacher at Oban High School and a member of the independent review of qualifications and assessment group. I thank you all for joining us.
We will begin with a short opening statement from Professor Hayward. Professor, you have up to three minutes.
Thank you very much for that, convener, and thank you to the committee for taking the time to discuss the independent review with us and for having taken the time to read it. We are grateful to you for the investment of your time in the process.
There are five key issues that we would like to draw to your attention. The first is that the report offers a longer-term direction of travel for qualifications and assessment in Scotland. This is not a quick fix; it is about thinking about the future and making sure that we have a future that serves every learner, and Scotland as a nation, well.
Secondly, although I keep seeing it referred to as such in the press, this is not the “Hayward report”. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a report that has engaged communities across the country, which have been actively engaged in working through ideas. So, what you have in front of you is the thinking and the agreed position across all those different communities. That is a really important issue.
The third point that we would like to make is that the vision is absolutely crucial. It is really important that we have a very clear idea about what we are trying to achieve. Then, everything that we do should be directed towards that. The vision is not only important at the beginning of the process. Often, innovation begins with good ideas, but, over time, the developments in practice begin to differ from the vision. That is our experience in Scotland, and there is evidence that it also happens internationally. If that is not picked up quickly enough, you get to a point, a number of years down the line, where you have to go through the whole process again. So, the vision is the touchstone, and, as ideas develop in practice, it is really important that we go back to that vision and gather evidence of what is happening in practice to make sure that we stay consistent with those key ideas.
That leads me to our fourth point. What we have learned from the curriculum in Scotland, but also internationally, is that it is not enough to plan for the educational aspect of innovation; there has to be a plan for change. The process of change has to be carefully planned, and, to be effective, it has to be co-constructed. So, everyone who is involved in making it work has to be involved in the process. The pace of putting ideas into practice should depend on the level of resourcing that is available. It is about working through the ideas and being realistic about the investment that can be made as they develop.
The fifth point that we would like to make is that there is no idea contained in the report that is not already in practice in at least one country. Indeed, many of the ideas are already in practice in some schools and colleges in Scotland. So, the report, “It’s Our Future”, is both principled and practical. It is about seeking to make high-quality provision available for every learner.
The colleagues that I have with me have been chosen very carefully.
No pressure.
Ken Muir was originally a geography teacher, but he has had a range of roles across the education system and is now working internationally. Peter Bain is a highly respected headteacher who has worked in a range of areas across Scotland in leadership roles and holds leadership positions in School Leaders Scotland and Building on Collaboration, Supporting Headteachers. So, in policy, research and practice, we hope that we have a range of perspectives, and we are looking forward to engaging with you in discussion.
Thank you. This should be an exciting session, with all that experience in front of us. Thank you very much for that opening statement and for submitting the paper, which was formed around those five points.
I will ask the first question, before we move on to questions from elsewhere. We have heard a lot about the common approach that is taken in Scotland of having two or three years of externally marked exams, and how that is quite rare. What evidence do you have that that approach needs to change?
I will start, and then I will perhaps pass to Peter Bain.
There has been consistent evidence across a range of reports that there are real challenges with the idea of having three consecutive years of examinations. We heard consistently from young people and teachers deep frustration about the balance of time spent in assessment and examination processes as opposed to focusing and deepening learning and teaching.
10:45Professor Stobart’s report indicated that Scotland is almost unique in having three points of high-stakes assessments one after the other, and the evidence that we had from learners was that much of their experience in the senior phase is focused on preparing for examinations. They have practice tests, past papers and prelims. In some schools, there were three prelims over the course of every year. The amount of time, therefore, that is spent in rehearsal for the high-stakes exam has led to disillusionment in the young people and frustration among teachers about the way in which the senior phase has been developing.
Are you saying that there is a real disconnect between what the young people are doing in their senior phase, curriculum for excellence and that focus? It is taking me back. I have shivers down my spine from remembering all those things when I was at school.
Peter Bain may want to comment on that.
Before I begin, if you do not mind, I want to say that these are not just my personal views. What I am about to tell you has come from a very large number of senior leaders in schools across the country.
I chaired a community collaborative of school leaders on behalf of the independent review group. There were 11 members, and they were chosen deliberately to gain access to schools in the independent sector, to Catholic schools and to Gaelic schools. They covered everywhere from the Highlands and Islands to the Borders and everywhere in between. Each member was tasked with creating their own collaborative of roughly another 10 headteachers from a variety of schools taken from that wide range of communities and, of course, their own local authorities. Those 11 members—12 including me—could be multiplied by 10 at a minimum. Each member was also tasked with discussing it with their deputes, their senior leadership teams, their principal teachers and, of course, their school communities. What I am about to tell you comes from across the country and not just from me.
This issue was one of the most vocally put forward as a failing of the current system. In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to find a school leader who does not think that curriculum for excellence is a wonderful ideology that is to be aspired to. When it was introduced, through a series of documents published by Education Scotland called “Building the Curriculum”, it was welcomed because of the support it got. “Building the Curriculum 3” set the vision, and then “Building the Curriculum 4” sought to build on that by promoting skills and experiences that would give breadth and relevance to the learning that we were providing in our schools.
Shortly after that, however, “Building the Curriculum 5” was published, and it was about assessment models. Very quickly, schools were diverted from the development of skills and experiences that would better prepare youngsters for life after school, life straight in at the workplace or life at the workplace after further or higher education. It concentrated on exams. The consequence of that continued pattern of behaviour was that we continued to seek to produce statistics that showed our schools, our local authorities and the country in a good light by comparing those sitting five or more higher exams in particular, although not exclusively, year on year.
The trouble with doing that is that we continue to teach the same narrowly based subjects in order to secure our continuing pass rates so that we do not fall down whatever artificial league table we produce. That unfortunately has a perverse impact on our curriculums in many schools—not all, but many—in that, by narrowing the curriculum to try to hit the five or more higher exams, we are not offering the correct pathway or the desired pathway of many youngsters, who may find it more beneficial to do national progression awards, to acquire skills for work or merely to drop a couple of subjects, because we are now able to produce what are called “flexible learning plans” and have them with employers, getting youngsters ready for the workplace. That means that not only headteachers but school leaders are frustrated by the continual focus on an exam-only system, and they feel that that has been perpetuated down the years.
To get right into your point, convener, if the focus is on trying to get as many exam passes as possible, rather than the acquisition of knowledge, skills and experiences, to achieve that goal, we do exams, we do prelims and schools do practice prelims. In fact, many schools do two prelims—one in November and another one in March—because the Scottish Qualifications Authority requires a degree of robust evidence that cannot be achieved in November, as we are only two thirds or, in some cases, one third of the way through a course. The whole system is designed to enable our youngsters to pass exams and not to prepare them for life after school.
Thank you very much. Professor Muir, do you want to come in on that as well?
Thanks, convener. As many of you know, I authored the report “Putting Learners at the Centre”, which was published just over a year ago. One of the things that I did was undertake a very extensive survey of not only practitioners but children and young people. A number of the messages that came back gave significant evidence that aligns with what Louise Hayward found in her review of assessment and qualifications. There were concerns about the two-term dash to higher, and that has been very consistent in Scottish education; the three-year back-to-back examinations—as Peter suggested, there is even more of that—the lack of articulation between broad general education and the aspirations of curriculum for excellence and the assessment and qualification system; what is perceived by many as a very heavy, knowledge and understanding content-laden curriculum, with the kinds of skills and competencies that are deemed to be appropriate for current and future learners largely missing from the curriculum; and a compression of time. All of those things came through very significantly in my report. Again, from working with Louise Hayward and her team, I know that they came through very significantly for her as well.
I say in my report that we have an examination-dominated system in Scotland. I was quite concerned after speaking to primary headteachers, because they made the point that the curriculum in primary schools is being directed by what is required in secondary schools, which is largely driven by what the exams require. I make the point that the kind of metric that we talk about in Scottish education as being a measure of quality—the number of highers that a young person might achieve in a single sitting in secondary 5—is not appropriate for the future. As Louise Hayward suggested, we have had a narrowing of the curriculum, largely because the main thrust for quality assurance purposes is how well young people do in examinations and standardised assessments. We know that young people and children, even in primary school, achieve much more than simply passes in examinations. One of the things that we tried to do in the report was look at how we can change some of the mindset and culture in Scottish education—in particular, the assessment and examination requirements.
Thank you very much. I have a brief supplementary question before I bring in Willie Rennie. This is directly for Peter Bain. If there is the flexibility that you speak about to do a range of things, where does the pressure lie to continue as we have always done?
The pressure lies largely in the way in which we report on our success. There is a societal pressure—not helped by national newspapers—to publish league tables. The Scottish Government obviously does not publish those itself, but reporters formulate them. That impacts on parents’ views on the success or otherwise of a school, which then impacts on elected members, directors of education and headteachers in schools. The publication of the artificial league table does not help. That is where a lot of the pressure comes from. However, I would argue that many headteachers and local authorities have, in the past five, six or seven years, woken up to that threat and are prepared to tell the full story about the success of individual schools and that it is not just about passing five highers or five national 5s. They are prepared to stand up and illustrate the positive destinations that are reached by their youngsters.
You will find that youngsters in schools that are in areas with high levels of employment opportunities leave school and go directly into the workplace. That is to be applauded. Doing so reduces the percentage of those who clock up five-plus highers, but the success is there. These days, we are providing an education system that is full of experiences, skills development and knowledge acquisition. It is getting a lot more of the young people into apprenticeships and the world of work, rather than keeping them on at school, trying to clock up qualifications that will just get them into the workplace later. That is not to say that we are harming those who wish to go to university—statistics show that that is not the case. Insight, a programme that schools use for self-evaluation, shows that, often, those who go on to university, if that is the journey that they wish to take, still secure the percentage pass rate and get seven, eight or nine highers.
Mr Bain, thank you for the clarity with which you are speaking this morning, which is helpful. You mentioned Insight. Is Insight part of the problem? Are we measuring the right things with Insight?
Personally—I am not speaking for the other people I mentioned earlier—I think that Insight is a very valuable tool. It allows us to deep dive—to use a schooly phrase—and get to the nub of how our additional support needs pupils are doing and how the pupils in our hostels and school care accommodation services are getting on. It allows us to go in depth and work out what support is needed to allow the young people to achieve the qualifications that they wish to have or need. It is a valuable tool. Unfortunately, everyone homes in on the “Breadth and Depth” part of Insight, and many do not use it to its full capacity to deliver the best choices for our youngsters. It is a good tool, but one part of it is used very badly. That is my personal view.
How well understood and trusted is the current suite of qualifications that is taken in Scotland’s schools? Do people understand and trust it, in depth?
I am sure, but not positive, that our school leaders and teachers across the country are very aware of the suite of opportunities that is available now and how the qualifications link to the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework, which all schools are now using extensively and which is heavily promoted by Skills Development Scotland as well as the schools and local authorities. That has helped our education communities to understand our parity of esteem. Gradually, over the past few years, our parent bodies—through the work done online and with additional meetings by ACQF framework personnel, SDS and schools—are becoming more aware of the value of national progression awards, skills for work, baccalaureates and, in particular, foundation apprenticeships, in which a large rise in uptake has been seen because of their value. That is slow, steady and very positive progress. However, you would be right in saying that not everybody fully gets it. I have parents who think that we still do O-levels, and we never did them in the first place.
11:00
I support what Peter Bain has said. The difficulty with asking a question like that is that there are many different answers, and it depends on who the individual is and what area you are talking about. One of the issues that was interesting during the review was that employers talked about the limited use that they make of the evidence that comes from qualifications. After six months in the workplace, nobody will ever ask you again what qualifications you have. Similarly, universities use the qualifications as a means of deciding who will get entry to which course. However, if we are serious, as a society, about ideas of lifelong learning, we need to think about a system in which it is not like falling off a cliff when you leave school or college but your experience transitions with you into the next stage and you can build and grow from that. The evidence that we have about the speed of change in society suggests that learners will have to be flexible learners all of their life because of the speed at which things are changing. We need a system that supports all our learners through those processes and in which what they have achieved in school or college goes with them into the next stage of their life and they continue to build from that.
The other issue that your question interestingly raises is that, perhaps, as an education system, we have, in the past, paid insufficient attention to a communication strategy. Any innovation has to have a clear communication strategy, not simply one that is linked to the point when the innovation is introduced but one that recognises that the strategy has to develop over time and be sustained, so that we build up the changes and understanding across society over time.
That is helpful.
You raise an interesting point about trust and confidence in the education system. When I compare the trust and confidence in the assessment and qualifications system in Scotland with what I see, particularly, in the Nordic countries, it is transformationally different. Those countries have a very high-trust system, and that is perhaps less so in Scotland. Yet, we have experts on the ground and practitioners in our schools who are well trained and ready to operate as experts in the system, and we make little use of that expertise in the qualifications and examinations system—much less than many other countries do.
Of course, that is one of the reasons why we suffered the problems that we did with the two years of Covid, when the examinations system had to operate very differently. The Nordic countries did not suffer anything like the same fragmentation and the same problems as Scotland faced. That in itself demonstrates that building trust and confidence that is similar to what we see in some other countries is part of the culture shift that we need to make in the Scottish system. It also demonstrates that there are systems in the world that use teacher expertise and professional judgment to a far greater extent than Scotland does.
Thank you. That potentially helps. I will read this out, because it is important that it goes on the record. The review developed this vision:
“An inclusive and highly regarded qualifications and assessment system that inspires learning, values the diverse achievements of every learner in Scotland and supports all learners into the next phase of their lives, socially, culturally and economically.”
That is a brilliant vision. To what degree was the current suite of qualifications used to support the vision that is set out in the review? How was the current qualifications system used to shape the vision?
The current qualifications system would serve aspects of the vision, but the independent review group was clear that the current system does not serve all the aspects of the vision. You will know that there were three phases to the consultation. The first phase was agreeing the vision across all the communities that we described, getting to a point where we say, “Okay, this is the direction of travel that we would like for Scottish education and Scottish society.” The second phase was around what the parameters are and what that vision might begin to look like in practice, and the third phase involved the development of a model from the feedback and consultation on that. However, our clear starting point was that our current system does not meet all aspects of that vision.
Mr Kidd, you mentioned the suite. It would be remiss not to separate the system from the suite of qualifications. In our view, the collective view of those who were involved in my work was, clearly, that this system is failing our youngsters. The suite of qualifications is not challenged. There is a wonderful array of qualifications delivered by educationalists across the country, whether in schools or further education, that serve the needs of our youngsters. The number varies, but the Scottish Qualifications Authority currently oversees around a couple of hundred courses, and it is only one qualification body that we use to tease out a wealth of qualifications best suited for our youngsters, particularly those going into vocational and professional environments.
However, a criticism of the suite was that, as much as we had all these professionals providing discrete educational experiences and knowledge, they were not tying up—that is why the interdisciplinary learning part of the Scottish diploma of achievement came about. In real life, we do not just talk history, we talk history when we are discussing economics or our family tree, and, similarly, we talk geography when discussing geopolitics or where we want to go on holiday. The main criticism of the suite is not its breadth; it is the fact that we do not talk to each other. I hope that the new qualifications awarding body will seek to develop interdisciplinary understanding and courses that better allow our youngsters to see the relevance of all these important topics, because, if they see more relevance and see how they can be used, they might buy into them in even greater number and pass not necessarily their exams but the assessments.
I will just add that it is important to remember that this is not just about qualifications; this is about achievements. Young people and children, from the early years all the way through primary and into secondary, make achievements in their learning that, currently, with the metrics that we use in the system, are largely about performance, standard nationalised assessments and examinations. In some cases, those achievements are significant, particularly for children presenting with an additional support need or learning disability. Currently, we do not openly recognise and value those in the way that we value qualifications. Part of the vision is trying to recognise and find a mechanism for recognising those wider achievements that young people make. That is one reason why the personal pathway is an important element of the diploma that is being proposed.
Hence, what the vision says about supporting
“all learners into the next phase of their lives, socially, culturally and economically”.
Absolutely, very much so. It is not just about examinations and qualifications.
Another important thing in the vision is the issue of inspiring learning, and there are various kinds of opportunities in that regard. Young people commonly tell us that they want to make a difference to the world. They want opportunities to use the knowledge that they are developing in the subject areas. They recognise that the subject knowledge is important, but they want to be able to think about how they can use that knowledge to improve society. This would give them an opportunity to do that. What is really interesting is that those are exactly the qualities that are required.
We often talk about knowledge and skills as if they are separate. You cannot develop skills without knowledge, and there is no point in having knowledge unless you can think about how you use it. In that context, those are the kinds of things that, employers suggested, were absolutely crucial for the future of each young person. The universities were also arguing that it is the combination of knowledge and skills that is really important and that, both in the workplace and in colleges and universities, many of the approaches that we propose in the Scottish diploma of achievement are already in place. We are looking to develop approaches to learning, achievement and progression that will better support learners into the next phase of their life.
That sounds quite inspiring.
Thank you very much for that scene setting.
Good morning. I have just a couple of quick questions on the process of the review group. Professor Hayward, the review was based on an integrity model of change. How do the work that you undertook and the final report reflect that integrity model?
To someone who has spent her entire life trying to demystify and remove jargon from assessment the “integrity model of change” sounds awfully jargonistic, but it is very simple. It was an empirical model that was developed from work done originally in Scotland around a programme called assessment is for learning. It was described by the then education minister as a “quiet revolution” in Scottish education in that it made differences to what teachers were doing in classrooms, and previous innovations had not had that level of impact. School inspectors who were going into schools were saying that they did not come across a teacher or school who had not heard about it. That is unusual for that kind of innovation.
As part of that, at the end, as a piece of research, we interviewed learners, teachers, local and national policy makers and all the people who were involved in the process. When we analysed the evidence, three things mattered. The first was educational integrity: people had to have a clear vision and they needed to be clear about what they were doing and that it was going to make a positive difference to young people’s learning. In the review, we then began working with the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament towards developing a vision that, we believe, is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The second thing was personal and professional integrity. That means that all the people who have a role in making the innovation work have to be involved in its development from the beginning, so they think through the issues as they develop the model. The model that we developed, which was the matrix model, was for those for whom qualifications matter most: learners and, as appropriate, parents or carers. A second group of people was made up of those who were involved in the design and development and those who offer qualifications. The third set of people was made up of those who use qualifications. All of those people matter if qualifications are to be effective and credible in the system. On the other side of the matrix, we had to make sure that the programme was as well informed as it could be. We had a number of research communities where we brought together national and international experts in different fields, including curriculum, assessment qualifications, process of change, equity and policy alignment. That is the personal and professional integrity bit.
The third thing was the systemic integrity, which I hope that you will see reflected in the recommendations. Innovation is a little like removing the back from an old-fashioned watch and seeing all the little cogs turning. If any one of those cogs stops, the watch does not work. For example, you need initial teacher education to be involved. As people come into the profession, there are expectations that they will have from the beginning. When school inspectors go into schools, they need to be looking for evidence of the Scottish diploma of achievement. It is about all those bits together. You need to make sure that the data that is being gathered reflects the key ideas in the Scottish diploma of achievement. That is the systemic integrity bit. That was the model on which the whole development was based.
11:15
I understand. Thank you for that detail. I think that you talked about the second part of the matrix when it comes to personal and professional integrity. The cabinet secretary said that, before taking forward any reform of the qualifications, she needs to hear from teachers, particularly secondary school teachers, whom she says will be key in driving forward any changes. Pre-empting that, how did your review ensure that it heard from those teachers? What did that group broadly tell you, and how did those discussions impact on the final output?
That is a really interesting question. In addition to the independent review group, with all the communities and the community collaborative groups that you have heard about, we set up a process whereby, for each of the three phases of the consultation, we developed packages of materials that were sent out to every school and college in the country. We assumed that those would get to every teacher in Scotland but we discovered that, although that was a really good approach in theory, it was, in practice, patchy. It became blocked at different points in the system. I will ask Peter Bain and Ken Muir to talk about examples of where it worked, and worked very well. I received feedback, via social media in particular, from teachers who said, “Nobody has asked me.” You then start to realise that it was getting through to some areas, but, in other areas, it did not seem to be working terribly effectively. There is learning to be done in that regard.
The cabinet secretary says that she wants to hear from every teacher in the country. That is a really important part of the process. It is important to have those conversations, because everyone should be involved in that process. From the model that we developed, there is learning to be done about how those systems work in practice. Our group argues that, if we are talking about changing culture, we need ways of engaging at scale with key people in the education system. There is learning to be done from the approach that we undertook—the model and the means for involving people. In order for the innovation to be successful, the process need to continue. It is about cultural change.
Not all of the meetings of the independent review group were uncontentious. We had really interesting, and sometimes quite heated, debates about issues. Our position was that, unless you work the issues through as the programme is developing, you are going to have to deal with the problems later. It is a process by which you deal in a principled and practical way with the future. We argue that, for cultural change to be developed, those processes have to continue in which everyone has a voice and everyone’s voice is part of coming through to agreed positions.
Peter Bain, do you want to come in? Professor Hayward suggested that you may want to.
I was just checking to see whether Professor Muir wanted to come in before I started speaking again. Some of the discussions that we had in those meetings in the course of just over a year were interesting indeed. Right at the beginning, Professor Hayward said that the review is not the “Hayward report”. At each stage, after each of those meetings, Louise Hayward asked, “Do we agree? Are we content to move forward as a collective position?” The universities, the trade unions, the school leaders and the youngsters were there. That was always measured as we went.
In that example, when we all gathered together and talked about each stage in that journey, we came to a consensus through communication and the acquisition of understanding. Herein lies the problem that Mr Kerr alluded to: all these teachers are saying, “I don’t know anything about this,” and, “I’m no sure about this and I don’t like it.” I have to say that, in the year that I spent doing this—and since, because I get the opportunity to speak to other local authorities, other schools and other groups on the subject just because I was in those discussions—when I held a session, even if it was just for a couple of hours, with a group of school leaders, teachers or whoever, I found that, when we talked it through and they understood the background to some of the recommendations, they said, “Aye. I’ll sign up for that. Yeah, I’ll agree to that.”
I held a session just last week for School Leaders Scotland, where all the local authorities were represented. The first question was—it is on the PowerPoint that got issued to all schools—“Do you support the Scottish diploma of achievement in principle?” Everyone bar two said yes, because we had had a discussion and they understood it. If you just go to a teacher cold, they are gonnae go “Naw,” because, naturally and justifiably, they have fears about workload in particular. This is something new. Anybody—it doesnae matter what their occupation is—if you suggest something new, they are always going to say, “I’m already too busy.” If you talk through what it is that we could give up or change or adapt to create the time to make the system and the opportunities better, they will go, “Aye. As long as I get time, as long as I get some money and as long as I get some resources, I’ll sign up for that.” That is where we are just now.
I mentioned the 11 headteachers, their groups of 10 and all their school communities. If you go to those schools, you find that they are okay with the SDA. They wish to accept it in principle, but they still want to know the devil in the detail. They want to move into a planning for implementation stage, but they accept it in principle. The teachers or the schools that did not engage and do not understand it are the ones that are more vocally saying, “Hold on a minute.” There are a fair few of them, so it is quite natural that the cabinet secretary has taken pause—measure twice, cut once, and no harm will be done. They will come to the agreement that everyone else has once they understand it: that it is a good idea that needs to be teased out.
Thank you.
Ben Macpherson has a short supplementary question.
This will be my main question, because it is related to the area that we have been discussing.
I thank the panel for their evidence. I have been thinking back to when I was in the second year of higher still, with the implementation of NABs and that initial culture change. The position of coursework and continuous assessment then altered in the following years. That speaks to the point that Professor Hayward made at the beginning about the need to continually emphasise the vision through practical implementation. We also need to consider the points that Peter Bain has just made.
Following on from the consultation with teachers in the short term, and as we enter the implementation phase with the considerations of workload and buy-in, teacher training and continuous professional development seem to me to be crucial as we think ahead to the process of implementing the SDA and making it work. Have you had any reflections on that?
Yes.
Can you expand on that? [Laughter.]
I used one word there because I cannot emphasise that strongly enough.
We like concise answers. We like positive, strong answers.
The countries that make the greatest progress on supporting learners’ achievements are those that invest in their teachers. It is really important to invest in the professionalism of teachers in Scotland. An interesting thing that we found in the review was how many creative but frustrated teachers there are in Scotland. All teachers care deeply about the learners with whom they work. Many of them expressed frustration that the current system in the senior phase drives them into fairly predictable behaviours where they are involved in a lot of rehearsal with learners rather than exciting them about learning and having passion for what they are doing.
It is interesting that, in the schools that we have been in—Ken Muir might have some really good examples of this—that have been involved in the project learning approach, the level of enthusiasm from learners and teachers is incredible. People have to be supported through that. The system also has to recognise that, if this is the way forward, teachers will be introduced at the beginning of initial teacher education to these ideas about what it is to be a teacher. They will expect to work in subject areas, but they will also expect to work across subject areas, be involved in project learning and have conversations with learners about their personal pathways. We will build capacity through that process.
We use the term “teacher” as though there was a single teacher. The truth is that we have teachers who are in different circumstances and at different stages in their thinking. We therefore need to be supportive towards people, starting from where they are and supporting them through the process. I could not agree with you more strongly that these things are really important.
Given the changes that were made in that first period of the implementation of higher still and the alterations that were made to assessment, is it important to learn from that process? Is it important to have a consistent, stable position for a good period in order to properly embed the implementation of curriculum for excellence in this next important phase?
Absolutely—without doubt.
Thank you. Professor Muir, I will let you respond as well.
11:30
Ben Macpherson’s questions relate back to what Mr Kerr talked about. As a system, we genuinely need to learn lessons from the introduction of curriculum for excellence. It is questionable how successful we were in doing that. Professional learning and the engagement of all staff in the philosophy of any reform or change is critical. That is where the cabinet secretary’s survey might be helpful, particularly as it will enable schools to begin to think about what that reform could look like so that they are at least in the starting blocks, if you like, in thinking about the reform.
On specific things that are happening, as Peter Bain said, many elements of the diploma are already happening out there, particularly in project learning that involves an interdisciplinary approach to learning. It provides young people with problem-solving challenges to which they can bring their knowledge and experience from a range of subjects and disciplines. An example is what is happening in Ms Thomson’s constituency, where the Falkirk-based organisation Fuel Change is offering an SCQF level 6 qualification this year. It has more than 600 students across, I think, 21 local authorities in Scotland undertaking the kind of project learning that we anticipate being part of the Scottish diploma of achievement.
We also have the Vardy Foundation, which offers a Gen+ experience to students in about six local authority areas. That allows them to develop what are generally referred to as meta-skills—such as resilience, leadership, co-operation and collaboration—through the kind of problem-solving activities that all the international research shows to be the educational experiences that current and future generations of young people will need if they are to deal with the challenges that they will face not just in school but throughout their lives.
A good number of things are happening. It is about learning lessons from where we did not get it quite right in introducing curriculum for excellence. It is about sharing the philosophy, developing the understanding and, critically, ensuring that teacher education programmes in Scotland and the continuing professional development that teachers require are provided up front as part of the reform process.
Thank you. In my role as convener, I have my eye on the clock. We are getting some really great responses from the panel, but I have to ask you to curtail your answers and keep them as concise as possible, as we still have an awful lot of questions to get through. I am sorry, because we are getting some good responses.
We will move on to some questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy about the recommendations.
Thank you for answering the questions so far and for the information that you gave us in advance. I am struck by the importance that you all rightly place on the role of teachers, by the point that some have felt blocked and by Professor Muir’s point about the impact of the distance between teachers and decision makers. How can we ensure that all three elements of the diploma are applied consistently across schools and are manageable for schools to assess?
That is a really important question. The answer lies in the collaborative approach that we have described. It is not about one or two people producing things in a darkened room that then go out into the world. It is about groups of schools working with local and national agencies and being involved in the development of the next phase, so that we build capacity across the country.
We also need to target and to be clear. If we are looking for consistency across the country, we need to design a system that will explore consistency across the country. It comes back to being clear about what we are setting out to achieve and designing approaches with people, recognising that different parts of the country will have different needs. It is about allowing flexibility but building national standards so that there is a shared understanding across the country and we build a sense of fairness.
Are the proposed structures fit for purpose to do that?
There is no reason why we cannot develop structures to do that. Once we are clear about what we are seeking to achieve, we need to look at the structures to make sure that they will facilitate those processes. One of the dangers with any innovation is that people think that, once they have agreed the vision, they can forget it and get into the practice. In fact, we really need to change the way that we think. It is about constantly asking why we are doing something, and it is then about the what, the how and the when. Once we are clear about the why, it is about asking how we can make the thing happen and how agencies can come in to support it.
I promise that this is the last long answer that I will give, convener. Linking it to a previous point that was made, I note that teachers should not have to start from a blank sheet of paper. There are things that it makes sense to do collectively. We can consider project learning as an example of that. We have examples in the system already that we can begin to build from. As part of that process, we should have the national agencies for the curriculum and assessment qualifications working collaboratively with groups of schools to develop examples of what project learning might look like. Schools will then be able to take those and adapt them to their circumstances. Schools that are already doing that work will be able to build on what they are doing. Schools for which some of the practices are more innovative will be able to build from the examples, rather than everybody having to starting from a blank sheet of paper. We learned that from higher still.
I point out that not all of the three elements that are being proposed in the diploma will be assessed. The programmes of learning are akin to what we currently have at SCQF levels 6 and 7 in highers and advanced highers. The project learning that we are talking about includes teacher evaluation and teacher assessment with some kind of moderation that involves a pass or a fail.
Critically, the personal pathway will not be assessed, but it is an important part of the proposed diploma because it will contain a record of the achievements that the young person has made throughout their learning experience. It will help to change the existing culture and mindset that learning becomes important only when a pupil chooses their subjects in the second or third year in school. It is about also giving due recognition to the learning that takes place in the early years and at primary school and is built on throughout their school career.
You have said a little about interdisciplinary working. To what degree do pupils already get opportunities to do that? Why has progress on it been slower than expected?
The reality is that some students get those opportunities and some do not. As the independent review panel, we are keen to establish that that is not good enough. Every learner in the country must have opportunities to develop the skills that are identified and to use the knowledge through skills in order to make sure that they are well supported into the next phase.
I go back to the old-fashioned watch idea. When students are in initial teacher education, much of their time—quite rightly, because this is the way that the parameters are set—is spent within individual subjects. They are supported for that particular role, but it is not the case that students in every institution across the country are supported into working in ways that cross disciplines. For that interdisciplinary approach to exist, people need to be supported to develop the skills that will allow that. That is an example of how, if one cog is not moving, we see the result in what happens in practice.
I ask Peter Bain to be brief.
I will be brief, convener. Schools are generally busy trying to put many minutes and hours of effort into the passing of exams. That proves that we are doing well and it means that the youngsters leave with a suite of qualifications that are viewed as good, albeit that there could be better alternatives for them. It is not that doing exams is necessarily bad. They are good if pupils acquire them, but they are bad if they were not the right choices in the first place. Because we are spending so much time doing that work, we are in many cases doing interdisciplinary learning only because the HMI are gonnae come in and assess us on it.
Do you have any concern that the Government will not accept your recommendations on exams?
The cabinet secretary is still to go through the second tier of listening. I am hopeful that the bit of the profession that has not spoken positively about the SDA will support it and that the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government will take the recommendations forward once they have heard from everybody.
Could the vision that you have described be delivered in the classroom environment that we have now, considering current classroom numbers and non-contact time? Could teachers do that now or will those things need to change?
As Professor Hayward said, we need a systemic change. That will begin with support for teachers not just through initial teacher education, which is fabulous these days and produces great teachers, but through CPD, which needs to happen in schools for teachers who are currently in the system.
I am pretty confident that we could do that if we understand what we are trying to achieve and we put robust support packages in place. The time will come from a review of the examinations system. If we do not just do practice exams, prelims and exams and we trust teacher judgment based on the development of teachers’ understanding of standards, all the time that is spent constantly teaching to the test could be transferred over to developing the skills of and opportunities for our young people.
That line of questioning leads nicely into that of our next questioner, Stephanie Callaghan.
Yes, it does. First, however, I will make a point about recommendation 6, which states that all three elements—programmes of learning, project learning and the personal pathway—need to be covered and that the diploma will not be awarded if they are not. I am a bit concerned about any risks that there might be around that, particularly with, for example, a pupil who does not have a parent who is particularly supportive or has not had great support from teachers and is missing out on that element.
We said that because, if what we propose in the report is accepted as the way forward, those three elements will be the fundamental drivers for the mindset and cultural shift that the system requires. That is why we said that the three elements need to be there. We see each of them as having an important role in changing from our current examination-driven system to one that recognises wider achievement and that better prepares children and young people for the uncertainties of the future.
It is more about ensuring that that part happens.
It is very much designed to emphasise some of the things that we have been talking about this morning that need to be in place in order to make it happen.
That is great. Thank you.
I will move on to the practicalities of delivering the change. Culturally, we hear people in this country talk about the three Rs. It is such a huge thing. We very much pride ourselves on it. It is in the fabric of us all. We all talk about education and have a real pride in it. However, a lot of people really do not like change. Peter Bain mentioned that all the teachers you have spoken to have really come on board with the proposals, as well as young people, parents, educators and employers. How do we ensure that the remainder come on board? How do we deliver that practically on the ground and create space to develop the structures that need to change and be used in classrooms? Also, the media and press were mentioned. How do we offer a bit of protection against an attack on the approach and the fact that the qualification is not definitive in the sense that they would be marked A, B or C? How can we ensure that they open their minds and see the wider picture?
11:45
Peter Bain, do you want to come in first on that?
Yes. Communication is the answer. Those who think that the Scottish diploma of achievement is a good idea said that only after we had talked it through and they understood it and how it all fits together. To give it resilience, we need to keep going with the collaborative approach, using all the stakeholders, as the independent review group did in the initial work. We should continue to talk to our parent bodies, the youngsters and, of course, those in schools and colleges, and ask for their views as we tease it out.
I used the phrase “planning for implementation”. That is not a formal phrase; it is just my way of trying to describe how we should move forward. We need to plan for implementation. If we think that the principles are good and that the SDA is worth moving forward with in its entirety, which most people I speak to, after discussion, think that it is, in planning for implementation, we need to keep stakeholder engagement. We need to keep involving them and, as Louise Hayward said, not just put a bunch of people in a room and come up with a bunch of papers. If we do that, we can positively go out to the media. Whether they publish what we find depends on the individual paper, of course. However, if we continue to promote collaboration and positive, practical, achievable aims in that implementation, the communities will buy into it as they have the initial idea.
Professor Hayward also wants to respond to your question, Stephanie.
We need to be creative and think about the ways in which we engage with people. I was struck by work that I did in Ireland. In introducing work in which there was a significant change, they developed a video that was shown on television and in cinemas. It was the story of Orla. It was a cartoon in which the young person went through the system. It began by asking, “Why are we doing this?” and “What will it look like for your child?”
We need to be creative in how we begin to engage with communities and to think about whom we are trying to engage in the process and how we are most likely to get to people. We have long moved beyond the position in which we believe that the letter going home in the school bag is an effective way of communicating. We need to think about such things more carefully.
That creativity also comes into the ideas of professional learning. For some people, professional learning is still the course that you go to or the event that you attend. Reframing it to say that professional learning is about the role that you play in taking forward the ideas, working with others, means that, as teachers build their expertise, they can share it with other teachers. You are therefore building capacity in the system at the same time as developing the ideas.
Is part of that talking about it being foreseen that there might be a decrease in the number of national 5s or higher subjects because young people are going in a direction that is much more suitable for them? Does that play a part in it?
That is absolutely right. Someone—I think that it was Peter Bain—said that some parents are still talking about O-levels. We have to recognise that. Those of us who are steeped in education are sometimes in danger of making assumptions about where the outside world is with education. That links to your question about the extent to which people understand the system. We have a responsibility there, too.
To tackle some of the issues head on—for example, when talking with a parental group—we should ask what issues parents are likely to be concerned about and then use that as the basis for thinking about how we communicate. Therefore, we develop our communication strategy with people. Doing that identifies the issues that matter to them, and we match the communication strategy to that. It is a more sophisticated way of looking at communication.
May I come in with a practical example?
Yes—a short, practical example, if that is okay. Sorry, but I am keeping my eye on the clock.
It is a very short, practical example, and it goes back to an issue that we have already raised. Many schools, in order to keep up the historical percentage of, say, national 5 pass rates, will produce packs of materials for youngsters who are not engaging as fully as they or we would wish. We get them qualifications by spoon feeding them. That happens in every local authority, although not in every school. Perhaps a better way to put it is that it happens across the country.
If the headteacher is brave enough to see a reduction in the number or percentage of national 5 passes and trade that off to ensure that a large number of youngsters get experiences that will allow them to go straight into a job—whether that be an apprenticeship or a job in the local economy—it will be worth it. Instead of those youngsters being put in a room and made to go through worksheets to pass basic qualifications, they go into the workplace better prepared and more work ready. That way, the employers are a lot happier, and so are the kids.
Willie Rennie, it is over to you.
I would be interested in your reaction to Fiona Robertson’s comments at the committee meeting last week. In particular, she warned about
“unintended consequences, particularly around equity and the personal pathway element.”
She said that
“it would be important that such an SDA could benefit all learners, whatever their pathway … particularly around equity and the personal pathway element.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 13 September 2023, c 39.]
Professor Muir, would you like to come in first?
That is the very reason why the SDA that we are proposing has those three elements. We need a different kind of recognition of achievement from the one that we have, which is heavily dominated by examination performance. It is very easy to set out a list of risks when changing any system. My personal view is that the bigger risk for us would be to not change the system. We know that there are significant issues with the system as it is currently set up and that the environment that the current generation of children and young people and future generations will go into will be radically different from the one that we have now.
The thinking behind the three elements is to ensure that young people are as well placed as they can be to deal with the kinds of problems, issues and challenges that Scottish society and global society will face. To do that, we need transformation in the curriculum that we offer and in how we assess and evaluate the performance and achievements of young people as a result.
I suppose that Fiona Robertson was setting out that there is a tension. There are tensions throughout this—I get that—but there is a tension between the choice for those people who will go down a particular path and the choice for others. A choice might have to be made as to whose interests are put first. Ultimately, this is about the timetable: can we get it to work? We are reducing teacher contact time, and extra elements will be brought into the timetable. Have you modelled that? I know that you are still at the high principle level, but have you modelled it to see how it would look and what the compromises would be?
Yes, it has been modelled in a variety of schools across the country. There are lots of examples of headteachers coming together to share existing good practice. I mentioned brave headteachers who are prepared to see a drop in the pass-rate percentages, and they are doing that because they are facilitating and encouraging partnerships with other organisations, whether that is the Outward Bound Trust, the Ocean Youth Trust Scotland or local businesses and employers that provide experiences that are best suited for the young people. That needs to be recorded somewhere. Some pupils are not passing their highers or national 5s. The personal pathway element of the SDA would allow some recognition of the acquisition of skills and experiences through partnership working. Exactly how that would work still needs to be teased out, but, in principle, we already do that across the country. We share those experiences on an almost weekly basis.
Okay. Thank you.
I can give you practical examples, if you want to contact me.
Thank you. [Interruption.] Sorry. Professor Hayward wants to come in.
I will be brief. The review group took the issue of equity incredibly seriously, as you will see in the report. In some aspects of education we are concerned with fairness, and there are others in which we are almost prepared to turn a blind eye. For example, we have an industry of tutors in Scotland who prepare learners for examinations. Is that an issue of fairness? There are issues around that that we need to begin to explore.
As a committee, we had a very serious discussion around equity. We realised that the qualifications and assessment system does not cause the inequity, but it shines a light on it. We had an option: we had lifted up a stone, and we either put the stone back down or we addressed it. We then started conversations around what it means to have an education in Scotland and to what should every learner be entitled.
In terms of the personal pathway, we made it clear that it is not about the number or the location of experiences but about the idea that every learner should have experiences that allow them to talk about the things that they are engaged in. We decided not to put the stone back down but to shine a light on inequity, ask what it is to have an education in Scotland and say that those three parts of the experience are entitlements for every learner.
I will bring in Michelle Thomson. Thank you for waiting patiently.
I thank the witnesses for a very engaging session thus far. I want to ask about artificial intelligence. They say that AI is like quantum physics: if you claim that you understand it, you are merely proving that you do not. I note Professor Hayward’s recommendation 12 for the Scottish Government to establish a cross-sector commission on AI urgently. Do you agree that it is vital that industry and academics, as well as practitioners and Government, are involved in that? Will you set out briefly what key themes you would like to see evaluated? The nub of my question is this: is there, in your opinion, a risk that some of the known issues with AI, particularly cheating, could push people back into teaching to the exam to alleviate said cheating rather than embracing the much wider perspective that you have outlined this morning?
That is a really interesting question. Of course, artificial intelligence came out of the blue, in a sense, midway through the review. All countries are struggling to decide how to respond to artificial intelligence just now. You will know from the report that there were two fundamental views. One view was that we should go back to tests and examinations, because at least you can control those. Another view, which came initially through the international baccalaureate, was that the learners with whom we are working will have to live with artificial intelligence and we have a responsibility to make sure that they are able to cope with that.
AI may change the nature of tasks. For example, it becomes fundamentally important that learners are able to discern the difference between what is fake and what is real. That is an issue for all of us. That will become not something in the margins but a fundamental skill. For example, it may change the nature of assessment tasks. There may be a task whereby you would ask young people to generate a response using artificial intelligence, but the task would be for them to critique it, to identify some element of dependable evidence within that and to ask where the false news is.
12:00Those are skills that we have to develop. It will change the nature of assessment tasks, but those approaches will be fundamental to what it is to be an educated citizen in the mid-to-late 21st century. Those are the issues that the Government has to explore. I totally support your view that it is not an issue for education alone. Again, it is about bringing together the collective.
Next week, countries from the International Educational Assessment Network are meeting to look at what is happening in relation to artificial intelligence across those 12 nations. We need learning about AI within the country but also learning beyond the country. Ultimately, we have to deal with artificial intelligence.
On that point, do you think that the fact that you even had those two facets indicates that there is still a relatively low level of awareness, regardless of whether it is among Government or wider practitioners, of exactly what the threats and the opportunities are of artificial intelligence?
Absolutely. We therefore need to involve those who are at the leading edge in those discussions. The people who have been involved in developing the process need to be part of the discussion.
As well as ensuring that young people can consider sources and what is truth, is there a need to make sure that our young people have the knowledge and skills to use AI and utilise its opportunities? That may be something that we need to talk more about.
That is a very important point. Absolutely. The same is true of teachers, if I may reflect that back into the discussion. From what I read about artificial intelligence, there are significant opportunities, for example, for it to support the reduction of some of the more bureaucratic tasks that teachers engage in. However, that will happen only if teachers are supported to develop those skills and approaches. It is about identifying the potential and putting support mechanisms in place to ensure that that potential is realised.
I am incredibly enthusiastic about the whole package of reform that you have proposed. It is probably fair to say that the element that has captured public attention the most is the question about the status of high-stakes end-of-term exams and alternative assessment methods. You have not prescribed exactly what those alternative methods would be when it comes to what continuous assessment, et cetera, might look like.
To illustrate the options, I will pick Ken Muir’s subject. Five years from now, if a 16-year-old were to take geography, what could that assessment look like? If it is not the high-stakes end-of-term exam model, what might that experience be and what options are available?
Thank you for your comments. One thing to make clear is that we are not advocating for the end of exams; we are saying that you need a broad range of approaches to assessment, and an exam can be one part of that. It is about broadening that range.
I will hand over to Ken, as the expert geographer, to respond to your question.
Over the years, geography has been a subject area that has set some of the direction of travel, through the investigations and assignments that have been part and parcel of the examination system. Where they have tended to fall down has been in regard to the time that it takes to engage in some of those activities.
When we look to the future, part of what I see a geography curriculum, for example, comprising would be not just so-called pure geography but opportunities for children to engage in some of the interdisciplinary learning that we are proposing through the project learning element of the SDA, and much more on-going assessment and evaluation by children and young people of the skills that they themselves are developing.
One of the criticisms that I certainly came across from students as well as practitioners when I was doing my report was that the opportunity to develop the kind of skills and competencies that I felt were necessary for the future were not necessarily in the curriculum. That is one reason why the project learning element is so important—it gives the opportunity to develop those meta-skills, such as working in collaboration. Given that we are talking about a potential two-year period over which to gain an SCQF level 6 higher, for example, I see young people themselves identifying, through the personal pathway, their development and expertise in some of those skills and competencies that the system currently does not necessarily include in the curriculum as formally as we feel is necessary for the future.
As Louise Hayward said, we are not advocating for the end of examinations. The programmes of learning are fundamentally what we see just now. It is about how any subject area, not just geography, offers the opportunities to develop the other two elements of the SDA.
You mentioned some of the potential new elements. Touching on what you said at the start of your answer, to what extent will it also be about recognising work that is already taking place? For example, you mentioned some of the assessment project work that is already happening in geography but does not currently count towards the final grade that a young person gets. How much of it is simply about bringing that into the mix of what makes up the collective assessment for their final grade? That would address some of the perfectly legitimate concerns that teachers have about workload, for example. It is about not just adding new stuff but recognising some of the good work that goes on that does not currently make up what decides the grade and what goes on the SQA certificate at the end of the year.
As I said earlier, we are not talking about a situation where all three elements are examined. That is an important part of the cultural shift that we are trying to generate through the SDA. Part of the answer to that goes back to what I said about the fact that some activities that schools already engage in demonstrate how the likes of project learning and the personal pathway can be developed. For example, as part of what the Vardy Foundation is doing with the Gen+ programme, a perfectly good digital e-portfolio is developed that encourages the young people who are engaged in that programme to reflect on their learning, to evaluate where they are in their skills development and to use that to plan for their next steps in learning. There are elements already in the system that could be built on.
It is about building teachers’ confidence, which is where the whole professional learning and CPD angle comes back in. Although many teachers in secondary school see themselves very much as subject experts, part of that cultural shift is about how they prepare young people for the very different world in which they will live. Although the subject element is important, so are the other elements that they, as learners, recognise, how they are developing and having a say in that as part of their learning journey.
In our discussions with young people, we were also struck by the weakness, sometimes, of the evidence base for the decisions that they took about the next stage in their life. We heard things such as, “I’m going to do X at college, because it wasn’t a subject at school, so it will be new,” or, “My dad did this, so I’m going to do the same.” The personal pathway is also about trying to encourage the conversations that allow learners to make better decisions about the next steps that they take in their journeys.
My next question touches on Willie Rennie’s line of questioning on the SQA and is about how this is taken forward and what specific proposals are adopted in taking forward your recommendations. I will ask a two-part question, because one part is a bit provocative and you might not want to answer it. How credible can the approach be if the SQA in its current form takes a lead on making decisions about what the new models of assessment might look like and what the balance of assessment might be?
You might want to sidestep that—although I urge you not to—so I will ask a general question. Who should Government involve in the next step of making those specific decisions on the balance of assessment and the models of assessment for each course, on the basis of your recommendations?
Those are tricky questions. Do you want to start on that, Ken, or do you want me to do so?
I am happy to offer my view. In Scotland, we have a single awarding body that sets the examinations and so on. As I said earlier, Scotland has a heavily examination-driven system, and that includes the curriculum. If you ask many teachers who is responsible for the curriculum in Scotland, certainly in secondary schools, they will say that it is the qualifications body. Personally, I do not think that that is healthy, because there is a huge amount of expertise at grass-roots level that needs to be used more effectively in determining what the curriculum looks like and how and when it changes, and in ensuring that it is not simply amended when a decision is taken to change the examinations.
I am hopeful—I hint at this in my report—that the proposed new qualifications and awarding body would be sympathetic to what we are proposing in the SDA, and that the activities and engagement of that body with the wider system would be at a high level, so that the young people benefit from not only examination results but the wider range of achievements that the education system in Scotland offers them currently and, arguably, could offer much more consistently and in a better way in the future.
Professor Muir, you deserve a lot of credit for being one of the driving forces behind the organisational reform that is taking place, but, realistically, we are probably three to four years away from having the new qualifications body established, bedded in and operational. I presume that you would not want us to wait until we have the new body—hopefully, with its new culture—before engaging in the implementation of the recommendations. That leaves us with the question of the current SQA and its role in taking this forward.
As I understand it, the Government is already moving forward on the introduction of a new qualifications and assessment body. That body’s culture will be significant in ensuring the success, or otherwise, of what we are proposing in the SDA.
Liam Kerr has the final question. I am looking at the time. If we have time, there will be one more question.
Qualifications, as they are set currently, are key to monitoring how the system is performing. Professor Hayward, can a Scottish diploma of achievement meaningfully allow for similar metrics to be gathered?
Yes, because it would give a broader range of evidence that would allow the policy makers to consider the system. To go back to a point that Peter Bain raised earlier, it would give evidence on every learner rather than only a number of learners and so would be a more comprehensive basis of evidence.
One of the issues that we raise in the report, but which I think is outside our remit—forgive me for that—is a suggestion that, in the future, Scotland may wish to reconsider the idea of having a national survey. National surveys can give bodies such as this committee specific information related to specific questions, and, because the evidence that is gathered does not identify individual schools, there is the advantage of not getting the negative washback effects that Peter Bain described. Although the diploma will give committees such as this a broader evidence base on which to make decisions, thinking about alternative ways of providing evidence for policy communities would be worth serious consideration in the longer term.
12:15
It could be argued that an examinations system provides an objective benchmark against which people can be assessed that might not be there with some kind of continuous assessment. How could you ensure parity in the assessment process in a continuous assessment framework, where different or more subjective means of assessment by the assessors might be applied?
I will start answering that question, and then I will hand over.
We probably do not have time for more than one panel member to answer.
May I make one comment?
Yes.
The research evidence suggests that we overestimate the dependability of external assessment and underestimate the dependability of teacher assessment. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are cultural issues that we need to address, and that is part of a communication strategy.
On exams, there is nothing wrong with assessment. Teachers need assessment because, without it, we are unable to determine whether they are working through the agreed programme of work and that there is the acquisition of skills and knowledge that we need. Teachers do assessments all the time, but more time and moderation are crucial to making that work in a continual assessment model. The people who mark the exam papers are teachers who work in a variety of schools and come together once a year.
There is nothing to say that a new qualifications agency will not spend as much time doing exams, but it will spend part of its time doing moderation activities in which existing teachers carry out the same type of activity but across the year. That would benefit a number of youngsters who cannot cope with being put in a big hall—
I want to bring in Stephanie Callaghan.
Sorry.
She has promised me that it will be a brief supplementary.
I am looking for a yes or no answer. Would it be fair to say that this is a shift away from quantitative data to look more at qualitative data that comes from the teachers, the pupils and their experiences, to get a better balance?
It is a balance.
It is both quantitative and qualitative.
We have managed to get everyone in. We have come to a screeching halt when we could carry on the conversation for some time. I thank the panel members for their time today.
12:18 Meeting continued in private until 12:34.Previous
Pre-Budget Scrutiny