THE ratings schools are given after an inspection could be scrapped, Education Secretary John Swinney has suggested.
Currently, a school’s performance in various areas such as leadership and the curriculum are rated at one of six levels such as unsatisfactory, weak, satisfactory, very good or excellent.
However, Mr Swinney said he thought there was “merit” in getting rid of the ratings because they became too much of a focus.
Mr Swinney stressed it was up to the chief inspector of schools whether any change was made, but added: “I think there is merit in that argument.”
He added: “The current richness of school-inspection reports could become lost if people focus predominantly on the ratings.”
Gayle Gorman, the chief inspector, later confirmed the idea was being explored by officials.
She said: “Often we get involved in a debate about what schools got and instead it should be a debate about what schools learned.
“There has been no formal consultation, but it’s certainly something we’ve been talking about and looking at.”
Ms Gorman stressed any alternative system of inspection would have to be clear about a school’s strengths and weaknesses.
However, the idea was questioned by Liz Smith, education spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservative Party.
She said: “Inspections are a vital part of the education system in terms of maintaining and enhancing school standards.
“The news that John Swinney believes there is merit in removing some of the objective classification in favour of more subjective assessments will be a worry to many parents and pupils.
“One of the most important reasons for school inspections is that they show the year-on-year performance and graded criteria can be very helpful in that respect.”
Eileen Prior, executive director of parent body Connect, said: “We would welcome a fresh look at inspections and how information is shared with families.
“However, parents want something that’s meaningful and recognisable as their child’s school. They don’t want jargon.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel