In October 2021, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills responded to findings from two OECD reports on Scottish Education by establishing a review of qualifications and assessment. OECD commended the aspirations of Curriculum for Excellence but suggested the Senior Phase, the final three years of secondary school, was problematic. A second report, led by an internationally recognised expert in qualifications and assessment, Professor Gordon Stobart, argued for change in Scottish qualifications and assessment.
It was difficult to disagree. Rumblings of dissatisfaction with qualifications in Scotland had existed for more than 20 years. Some argued examinations did not challenge more able learners: others that the impact on learners’ mental health of examination anxiety could not be justified. Concerns were widespread about the impact of examinations on learning and teaching where examination rehearsal dominated: prelims (in some schools three in a year), past papers, and examination routines. There was little time for learning that was deep and meaningful. Dissatisfaction peaked during the pandemic when, for the first time in more than 100 years public health concerns meant young people could not take examinations. Instead, teachers submitted grades based on professional judgement. These were moderated by the Examination Board (SQA) using historical data from schools’ previous performance. When it emerged that young people from schools in areas of disadvantage were more likely to have grades moderated downwards, people demonstrated. The Government overturned results and teachers’ grades were re-instated. However, perceptions of social injustice remained.
Wider concerns endure that learners’ achievements beyond National Qualifications (N5, Highers, Advanced Highers) are valued less. At a recent meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee at the Scottish Parliament, Graham Hutton, Head of School Leaders Scotland, reported that, ‘20 % of our young people leave without one N5. That is one of the benchmarks we use in Scotland. These benchmarks are wrong. They do not recognize how much young people do achieve’.
Qualifications serve a variety of purposes. They provide evidence of achievements. Qualifications are also the currency we use to allocate opportunities. They are used by employers, universities and colleges to decide who to appoint to which job or to select for which course. Qualifications are also used as a proxy for school quality. Although not created by Scottish Government, league tables of school qualification performance are published in some newspapers. The higher a school’s position in league tables, the better the school is assumed to be. Yet every year, most schools who lead league tables serve more advantaged areas and those at the other end serve more disadvantaged areas.
Perhaps it is the wide range of purposes served by qualifications that lead them to be ‘high stakes. It may also be why qualifications are difficult to change. Gordon Stobart argued that often there is social reluctance to change a system ‘that has been in place for generations, where parents, policy makers and teachers are familiar with it and value it- even when it may no longer be fit for purpose’.
Members of the Independent Review Group included all those who have a stake in the future of qualifications: from young people to international employers and researchers. The group consulted widely and in depth within Scotland and internationally. It found that assessment in the senior phase was out of kilter with the more innovative assessment approaches used by colleges, universities and employers.
The Independent Review’s report, ‘It’s Our Future’, proposed that Scotland adopt a broader approach to qualifications and assessment. The proposal for a Scottish Diploma of Achievement brings qualifications into better alignment with what Curriculum for Excellence set out to achieve. The approach has much in common with international baccalaureates in use across the world and all recommendations are already in practice in at least one other country. The Diploma is in three parts. In schools, e.g., subjects are a core component, with graded examinations. To lessen time spent rehearsing for examinations and to create time for deeper learning, the report recommended using teachers’ professional judgement in S4 qualifications. The second element, Project Learning, asks students to demonstrate skills in using subject knowledge to tackle a problem (local or global). The third part, the Personal Pathway seeks to personalise learning. This area, owned by students, would include evidence of their interests, their contributions to school or wider society. Here, students would reflect on how their learning in subjects, the skills developed in their projects and their interests and experiences combine to help them make good decisions about what they might do next. To address issues of equity, the report recommends that students should be entitled to key experiences.
Whilst the idea of consensus in an area as contentious as education is a myth, there was considerable support across all communities for the changes proposed and that support remains more than one year after publication.
When the Cabinet Secretary responded to the Review, newspaper headlines were dominated by examinations. ‘SNP ditch proposals to scrap exams for 15- and 16-year olds’. The Cabinet Secretary’s statement to parliament was more balanced. Though cautious because of the challenging financial context, doors to a different future for qualifications remain open. Reform will be gradual. There will be less reliance on high stakes final examinations and more on internal, continuous assessment. A national working group will develop ideas around interdisciplinary (project) learning. The Government will explore how wider achievement might best be recognised. Work is going forward to develop a digital profile and the idea of a leaving certificate is a longer-term goal.
Change in schools and colleges will have to be resourced. Yet, change is underway, carefully and cautiously designed to offer better opportunities for future generations of students in Scotland. There is a balance to be struck between moving more quickly than the system can cope with, and these are difficult times in schools and colleges, and moving at a pace where societal changes outpace the ability of the system to change. At the heart of all of this are young people and Scotland’s future. The stakes are high indeed.
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 here