EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and methodology
1. Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) was launched in 2004 with the aim of improving the educational outcomes for all children and young people, 3 to 18. The Scottish Government wants to create a qualifications system that reflects the values, purposes and principles of CfE to the benefit of all learners.
2. This report presents the findings of a public consultation to inform arrangements for the next generation of National Qualifications in Scotland. The Scottish Government launched the written consultation on 10 June 2008 and it ran until 31 October 2008 1. It comprised a number of strands: a written public consultation, associated consultation events and qualitative research with key stakeholders. Ipsos MORI Scotland was commissioned to analyse the consultation responses, sample findings at the events and to undertake and analyse the qualitative research.
3. An electronic copy of the consultation document was placed on the Scottish Government's consultations website and hard copies of the consultation document were circulated to schools and other relevant organisations.
4. In total, 1807 responses were received from individuals and organisations. By far the highest proportion of responses received was from secondary schools.
5. The objectives of the qualitative research were to:
- obtain the views of key stakeholders whose views it was felt were essential to the consultation, but were less likely to respond to the written consultation (secondary school pupils, college students, parents and employers)
- explore in greater depth reactions to the proposals from some key stakeholders (headteachers, teachers and college lecturers).
6. Thirty three focus groups and 19 depth interviews were undertaken between August and October 2008 across a range of locations in Scotland.
Main findings
Proposal 1 - National Qualifications at Access, Higher and Advanced Higher will be retained as points of stability and updated in line with Curriculum for Excellence
Q1. Do you welcome the intention to update all qualifications at Access, Higher and Advanced Higher in line with Curriculum for Excellence?
7. Most (76%) were in favour - although just over half of these respondents had caveats or concerns - and 20% of all respondents were opposed.
8. The most common reasons given for supporting the proposal were that: it is logical and necessary to update qualifications in order to implement CfE; there is a need to modernise the curriculum; there is a need for better articulation between levels.
9. There were four main reasons given by those who disagreed with the proposal: CfE is vague, incoherent, or flawed; more information is needed about the changes; there has been too much change already; there is no need for change because the present system works well.
10. Those suggesting implications to be considered mainly commented on the resourcing requirements. Respondents mentioned costs in general and, more specifically, staffing, CPD and the need for centrally produced materials.
Proposal 2 - a new qualification will replace the present Standard Grade General and Credit levels and Intermediate 1 and 2 ( SCQF 4 and SCQF 5) qualifications
Q2. Early consultation has identified the 'best' features of Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications as the 'inclusive' approach to certification contained in Standard Grade and the 'unit based' structure of Intermediate qualifications. Are there any other features in the present Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications which should be included in the new qualification at SCQF levels 4 and 5?
11. The most common suggestions/comments were:
- the need for progression between levels - and articulation with Highers in particular
- the option of presentation at two levels as in Standard Grade
- an equivalent of Foundation level at Standard Grade. Some respondents did not feel that the alternative of Access 3 was as inclusive
- external examinations, in order to ensure consistency and credibility
- the practical and investigative aspects of courses
- the broad overview provided by the wide range of topics covered in courses at these levels.
Q3. Do you agree that units should be graded A-C rather than pass/fail?
12. Just over half (51%) of respondents agreed with the proposal to grade units A to C, while 43% disagreed.
13. The most common reasons given for agreeing with the proposal related to the perceived benefits for pupils. It was felt that grading would: increase the value of units and would give recognition for those who did well (which would motivate pupils to work harder); provide pupils with useful feedback; provide better evidence than the current 'pass' when it comes to appeals.
14. The main reason given for disagreement was the workload implications for teachers. Other reasons cited included problems with developing a standardised approach to grading and the need for a system of external moderation to ensure consistency and credibility.
Q4. Do you want graded units to count towards the final award?
15. Just over half (51%) did not want graded units to count towards the final award, whereas 40% were supportive of this.
16. The main reasons given for agreeing with the proposal were: it is fairer because it takes into account pupils' achievements throughout a course; there is no point in grading at all if grades are not taken into account when determining the final award; pupils would take units more seriously and therefore be motivated to work harder and more consistently throughout the year.
17. Reasons cited by those opposed to the proposal included the risk of demotivating pupils. Some felt that pupils who perform very well throughout the year would not study as hard towards the final exam because they know they are going to pass well. In contrast, pupils who achieve low scores for units would not study either as their chances of obtaining a higher grade are diminished.
18. Other reasons given for opposition were: pupils tend to do less well at the beginning of a course because it takes time to develop understanding and skills; issues relating to the credibility of internal assessment; it would increase pressure on teachers to allow pupils to resit unit assessments to improve their grades.
Q5. Which option for introducing compensatory arrangements would you most support?
19. Overall, the most popular option was to recognise unit passes only, on the basis that it was the fairest and most transparent option.
Q6. The proposed name for the new award is General ( SCQF 4) and Advanced General ( SCQF 5). Please indicate if you are content with this suggestion. If not, please offer an alternative and explain your choice.
20. The majority were not in favour: 71% of all respondents disagreed while 21% agreed. There was a sense that respondents found the proposed names uninspiring. There was also a view that the names were meaningless as they did not provide an indication of what level had been attained.
21. The most common alternative suggestions for the names of new awards were: keep General for the award at SCQF level 4 and Credit for the award at SCQF level 5; use SCQF levels, for example, Scottish Certificate (of Education) Level 4 and 5, Scottish Award Level 4; Scottish Award Level 5; keep Intermediate 1 and 2.
Proposal 3 - new awards in literacy and numeracy will be available at SCQF levels 3 to 5
Q7. Do you agree with the proposal to offer literacy and numeracy awards at a range of SCQF levels (3 to 5)? If not please offer an alternative.
22. Overall, a majority were in favour: 61% of all respondents agreed while 30% disagreed.
23. The main reasons cited for agreeing with the proposal were that: literacy and numeracy are essential skills for life; it recognises literacy and numeracy as separate skills from English and Maths and provides a measurement of these skills which is useful for employers and colleges; it will encourage the development of these skills across the curriculum.
24. The main reasons cited for disagreeing with the proposal were that: pupils should have these basic skills already; the expectation that (almost) all pupils will have to take these awards conflicts with the aim of reducing the burden of assessment; having an element of external assessment will lead to teachers teaching pupils what they needed to know in order to pass an exam as opposed to teaching for learning; practical and resource implications in organising the teaching and assessment; the prospect of schools moving away from the practice of making English and Maths compulsory; concerns about whether the awards would be valued by employers, colleges and universities.
Q8. National Qualifications at Access 3 ( SCQF level 3) do not have an external examination. Do you agree that any new awards in literacy and numeracy at SCQF level 3 should have an examination?
25. Overall, a small majority of those who expressed an opinion were in favour: 49% of all respondents agreed while 42% disagreed.
26. By far the most common reasons cited for agreeing related to the credibility and value of the award.
27. The main reason given by those who disagreed with the proposal was that external exams can be a barrier to attainment for pupils working at SCQF level 3 as they cannot cope with that form of assessment.
Q9. Should weighting between the internal and external assessments for the literacy and numeracy awards be equal? If not, should more weight be attached to the internal or external assessment?
28. Just under half of all respondents (49%) stated that more weight should be given to external assessment. The main reason was to ensure that the new awards are seen as credible qualifications. Eighteen per cent of respondents supported equal weighting and 14% thought that more weight should be given to internal assessment.
Q10. When should young people be assessed for literacy and numeracy awards? Option A: At the end of S3 as part of the summer diet of examinations. Option B: In the December of S4 as part of a winter diet of examinations. Option C: At the end of S4 as part of the summer diet of examinations.
29. Option A was the most popular option, selected by 49% of respondents. The main reasons cited were that: it would give pupils more time to work towards their subject exams in the summer of S4; pupils are already overloaded with exams in S4; it would be a good way to mark the end of the broad curriculum in S1-3; the results from the literacy and numeracy awards could provide an indication of the level a pupil should be working at in S4; it would be best for pupils to sit the literacy and numeracy awards at the earliest time offered because, if they do not have literacy and numeracy skills by that point, then it was unlikely that they would improve by S4; the time between S3 and S4 is a critical one for pupils and they can become disengaged by the end of S4.
30. Reasons given for opposing this option were that: pupils in S3 would not take literacy and numeracy awards seriously if they were to be separated from what might perceived as the 'proper' exams; that there is a contradiction between sitting the literacy and numeracy awards in S3 and the general policy against early presentation for other awards.
Proposal 4 - increased flexibility to better meet the needs of young people
Q11. Do you agree with the proposal to allow the study of Highers and Advanced Highers over 12 months, 18 months and 2 years?
31. Forty-three per cent of all respondents agreed with the proposal to allow the study of Highers and Advanced Highers over 12 months, 18 months and 2 years and 36% disagreed. A further 16% agreed to the proposal to allow study over 12 months and 2 years but not over 18 months.
32. The main reasons given for agreeing with the proposal were that: it means that pupils gain a greater depth of learning; pupils will be given more opportunity to pass a qualification at a higher level or achieve a better grade than they might have in a 12 month course; increasing flexibility is a good thing and creates a greater degree of personalisation.
33. The main reasons given by those who saw problems with the 18 month option were that: presenting pupils for a two year Higher has worked well in the past; 18 month courses would necessitate a winter diet of exams which some were opposed to in general; the practical difficulties of accommodating an 18 month course would be much greater than for a 2 year course.
34. The main reasons given for disagreeing overall with the proposal were the practical issues including timetabling and the multi-level teaching that might result. A number of respondents believed that if schools offer different levels of flexibility, there would be inconsistencies across Scotland. Others felt that pacing the material of a 1 year course over 2 years might demotivate some pupils, especially if they see others completing the same course in 12 months.
35. Some parents, pupils and teachers were also concerned that employers and Higher Education institutions would not value awards taken over 18 months and 2 years as highly as those taken over 12 months.
Q12. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a winter diet of examinations?
36. Overall, the majority of all respondents were in opposition: 24% agreed and 69% disagreed.
37. The main reasons cited for agreeing with the proposal were that: it provides Christmas leavers with an opportunity to gain qualifications before they leave school; spreading exams out over the year would reduce the pressure of having too many at once; it is necessary to introduce winter exams if there are to be 18 month courses; more flexibility in assessment will give pupils the opportunity to work at their own pace; it gives pupils the opportunity to resit exams they have failed in the summer.
38. Respondents not in favour of the proposal highlighted many practical problems, all of which were thought to disrupt the school year and lead to an increase in costs. These included: providing the physical space for exams; the impact on teaching time; resource implications for the SQA; pupils would feel like they had exams all the time; seasonal problems with pupils involved in events and activities such as concerts and dances at this time. Additionally, some respondents commented that a winter diet was tried before and was not successful.
Q13. If you agree with the proposal to introduce a winter diet of examinations, what subjects and levels of qualification might first be offered?
39. Of the 448 respondents who were in favour of introducing a winter diet of examinations, 87% answered this question.
40. Around a quarter of respondents suggested that every subject at every level should be offered as this was seen as the fairest and most flexible option for pupils. Those who did feel that particular subjects should be offered first felt that it should be high uptake or 'core' subjects such as Maths, English, Numeracy and Literacy. One of the reasons given was that using subjects where there was likely to be sufficient demand for a winter diet would provide the most worthwhile trial.
41. In terms of the levels offered, there were two main viewpoints. The most common suggestion was that Highers (and to a lesser degree Advanced Highers) should be offered first. Less commonly it was felt that it should first be offered at SCQF level 4 and 5. This was linked to a view that a winter diet would be most beneficial for Christmas leavers.
42. An alternative stance was that a winter diet should be used for resits only.
Q14. Would you agree with changes to the system which allowed the most able students to bypass qualifications at lower levels and begin study for Highers from S4 onwards?
43. Overall, a small majority were in favour: 52% agreed while 43% disagreed.
44. The main reasons given for agreeing with the proposal were that: it would challenge and motivate the most able pupils; the increased time for teaching and learning (rather than assessment) would deepen pupils' learning and increase achievement; it was achievable for the most able pupils; it was working well in some schools already.
45. The main reasons cited for opposing the proposal were that: pupils benefit from the exam practice gained by taking qualifications at lower levels; the need for a safety net if things 'go wrong' later on; pupils needed the knowledge base gained from the lower qualifications before they could handle the Higher; pupils would lack the maturity for Highers.
Q15. Do you have any other ideas for increasing flexibility within the senior phase (S4 to S6)?
46. Nearly half of respondents (819 out of 1807) made suggestions for increasing flexibility in the senior phase.
47. Suggestions for increasing flexibility in the senior phase fell into five broad categories:
- increasing the number of vocational courses and opportunities
- better resourcing
- the nature and structure of qualifications offered
- timetabling and timing
- modes of delivery and assessment.
Timeline
48. Most respondents (78%) did not think that the indicative timeline in the consultation document (approaches based on the new curriculum being introduced from school year 2009/10) was realistic and just 15% of all respondents thought that it was. Following Management Board advice, the Cabinet Secretary on 31 October 2008 announced an additional year for implementation of Curriculum for Excellence with the effect that the new and revised qualifications would be introduced from school year 2013/14 onwards.
Other comments
49. Overall, around half of respondents (893 of 1807) responded in the 'any other comments' section of the consultation document. These comments did not always arise from consultation proposals but were often related to concerns about the implementation of a broad general education from pre-school to the end of S3 (and the particular implications of this for S1-S3) as proposed in Building the Curriculum 3, and about the consultation process itself.