Education reform: Conservative plans 'would take Scotland back to 1950s'

However, Ross Greer, education spokesperson for the Scottish Greens, said: "These plans would take our schools back to the 1950s at best, but in some areas, they are little better than a tribute act to Victorian-era education policies.

"The proposals ignore everything we have learnt about child development over the last seventy years, not to mention the effect of technological change.”

READ MORE: Curriculum for Excellence 'should be axed'

Called Curriculum for All, the Conservative paper expresses profound doubt about CfE’s focus on developing pupils as successful learners, responsible citizens, confident individuals and effective contributors. It argues that knowledge should be the education system’s core aim, adding: “It is for parents to pass on their values to their children. That means ensuring that schools do not undermine the role of parents in deciding what is right or wrong for their child.”

The paper continues: “Setting learning as just one of four capacities devalues the importance of knowledge in our education. While we believe that the other three goals are worthy to an extent, we do not believe that they should hold the same weighting, as learning which is ultimately the reason children go to school.

“We also have reservations about the role of schools in teaching children to be ‘responsible citizens’ over their own parents. As such, it is our view that the successful teaching of knowledge should be placed at the heart of any new curriculum.”

Amid an ongoing debate on the future of assessment, the Scottish Conservatives have also voiced concern about how well pupils are prepared for “subject-specific examination” during their Broad General Education (BGE) between early years and S3. The party's document states: “It is our view that a new curriculum should encourage earlier subject specialisation to ensure that pupils are much more adapted to this model of teaching ahead of entering into the examination phase of their schooling.”

Ross Greer has attacked the Conservative proposals.

The paper's publication comes in the wake of detailed analysis from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In a report published last year, experts assembled by the Paris-based body said CfE’s aim of achieving excellence for all pupils was “widely shared by stakeholders and continues to be an inspiring example equated with good curriculum practice internationally”.

But the OECD document stresses that the curriculum "will only remain relevant if Scotland uses these insights to continue its development". It adds: "CfE’s complex framework works well in BGE and for learners taking Advanced Highers, where the concepts, pedagogical and learning approaches are coherent, and the implemented school curricula seem consistent with policy intentions.

“However, there is some ambiguity about the role of knowledge and ways of knowing in a 21st century curriculum framework. Adjustments might therefore be needed in the concepts of CfE and the tools to put them in practice in both BGE and the Senior Phase.

“The structure, learning practices and assessment approaches in the Senior Phase also need adapting to be consistent with CfE’s vision, and to allow for the smooth curriculum experience promised from 3 to 18.”

The report’s recommendations were accepted by ministers, who have since announced that the Scottish Qualifications Authority and standards body Education Scotland will be replaced, with the inspectorate becoming fully independent. The Government also wants to set up a new national agency that has responsibility for curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning.

Professor Louise Hayward of Glasgow University is currently preparing a report about the future of pupil assessment. Her analysis is due to be published later this year. 

READ MORE: Teachers 'covering up' violent behaviour

Mr Mundell said recently announced changes amounted to no more than a rebranding exercise. He also insisted ministers had interfered with the process of producing the OECD report, adding that the research was “set up to fail”.

But Mr Greer said it seemed the Conservatives had dismissed "every one" of the organisation's recommendations and "ignored entirely the high praise those international experts had for the Curriculum for Excellence”.

He added: “Instead of responding to the valid and important criticism of our outdated exams system, they would double down on a frankly Victorian approach to assessments, pitting schools against each other at the expense the elements of our education system which have actually kept up with the times and equipped young people with the 21st century skills they need.

"Fortunately for Scotland's young people, the Conservatives are not the ones leading the reform of our education system over the next four years."

Lindsay Paterson, professor of education policy at Edinburgh University’s School of Social and Political Science, said the Conservative insistence on the “importance of knowledge in any sound education” was “very welcome”. However, he stressed the party’s policy ideas were “no more than a beginning”.

Professor Lindsay Paterson said the Conservative proposals were "no more than a beginning".

He added: “The proposals say that the problem of Curriculum for Excellence is that it does not prepare students adequately for school exams such as the Highers. But the problem is that the syllabuses of the Highers have themselves already been diluted by the same kind of inadequate thinking as has led to Curriculum for Excellence. Discussion of the school curriculum will have to include the recovery of knowledge and rigour in the Highers.

“The curricular proposals completely ignore social inequality of learning. One of the strongest arguments for basing the curriculum on knowledge is that it is a way of levelling up.

“The children of well-educated parents tend to acquire knowledge at home. Other children are crucially dependent on the school for knowledge. But to achieve this levelling up requires a different approach to teaching knowledge than was common in the past. The proposals do not acknowledge this.”

Prof Paterson also questioned the suggestion that citizenship is not something that should mainly be learned in school. “As with skills, this is a misconception of the purpose of knowledge,” he said. “Part of the purpose of teaching knowledge is to enable students to become effective citizens who understand their responsibilities. Relegating citizenship to the home is not enough.

“The proposals emphasise the importance of digital skills, while also saying that skills should not be what schools mainly teach. That’s a contradiction.

“In truth, the main point about the relationship of skills and knowledge is that they should be taught together. If the problem with Curriculum for Excellence is that it pays inadequate attention to knowledge, it is important not to replace that with any system that paid inadequate attention to skills.”

Larry Flanagan, general secretary at the EIS, said his union was “clear that Scotland’s teachers continue to deliver for Scotland’s pupils across not only the attainment agenda but also the broader and equally important areas of pupil well-being, resilience, and character development”.

He added: “The pandemic has deepened the challenges we face, especially around tackling inequity, and Scottish education needs significantly more investment in teachers and specialist student support if we are truly to see education recovery in our schools. Contrary to some narratives, however, Scottish education is well respected internationally, not least for its focus on challenging inequalities.”