OECD Evidence Paper 2015

The Governance of Curriculum for Excellence in Scottish Secondary Schools

Structural Divergence Curricular Distortion and Reduced Attainment

Submission to the OECD CfE Team by JD Scott PhD

1 Introduction

This paper presents two sets of previously unpublished empirical evidence on the development of Curriculum for Excellence and the associated ldquonewrdquo National Qualifications (nNQs) The evidence focuses on the negative effects of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) - as implemented - on the middle secondary curriculum and on attainment at Scottish Credit and Qualifications (SCQF) Levels 3-5

Drawing upon analysis of CfE and nNQ documentation anonymous interviews with almost 60 key national local authority and school governance actors in Scottish education visits to 64 secondary schools a review of recent HMIe secondary school reports analysis of Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) enrolment and attainment data from 2000 to 2015 and scrutiny of all (functioning) secondary school websites and the documentation contained therein this paper considers the effects of CfEnNQ governance decisions and actions on the secondary curriculum and the consequent impacts on enrolments and attainment in S4-6 ultimately leading to the identification of successesissues and to a set of recommendations for further development andor change

The premise of the paper is that the negative effects observed in the middle secondary years result from fluctuating - at times weak or unsatisfactory - governance of the planning development and implementation of the two initiatives particularly within the national layer of politico-educational governance Since the OECD team may already be in receipt of evidence examining this issue a summary of the key governance decisions and actions considered in developing the findings of this paper is included in Appendix 1 The evidence gathered also supports a view that local authorities have not been united in their approach to these two initiatives may in many cases lack the capacity to generate significant improvement from their own personnel and resources and have failed to make any sustained positive contribution to the implementation process School issues are also apparent as schools have adopted at least five significantly different approaches to implementing the S4 curriculum and its associated initial set of qualifications These are accompanied by considerable variety in the first three years of secondary and have differing impacts on attainment and progression towards positive destinations beyond school

The principal findings of the paper are

Curriculum (see Section 2)1 There is no consistent approach to the middle (or lower) school curriculum in Scotland This lack of

consistency is much more pronounced than before CfE (see Figure 1) 2 The result of curricular change particularly in schools pursuing a 6-column S4 curriculum (circa

150 schools) or a 5-column S4 curriculum (15-20 schools) is curricular narrowing and significant curricular distortion with some curricular areas subject to significant reduction in enrolment

3 A reduction to 6 S4 courses was never a planned aspect of Curriculum for Excellence but is an expedient measure resulting from some schoolsrsquoauthoritiesrsquo interpretation of what is now possible within time constraints

4 Some schools have developed their (S1-) S4 curriculum to meet perceived local needs others (mostly located in a contiguous geographical cluster in N and NE Scotland) have been mandated to implement a structure by their local authority

5 Differing curricular structures mean that as learners progress from S4 to S5 to S6 their overall attainment potential varies significantly depending on the schoolauthority in which they learn

6 The challenge for learners moving from council area to council area or even school to school during their middle secondary career is much greater than before CfE

1OECD Submission JD Scott

7 HMIe do not appear to have specifically supported one curricular approach (nor do their initial inspection reports since 2014 appear to suggest that 56 courses is more successful in promoting achievementattainment than 78)

Qualifications (see Section 3)8 The number of courses available to an S4 learner varies from 5 to 8 with variable numbers of these

certificated within the year (see Figure 1) thus the number of S4 qualifications varies from 0 to 89 Overall Level 3-5 enrolment has dropped by 17 since the introduction of CfEnNQs (see Table 1)

Much but not all of this is attributable to changed S4 curricular structures10 Overall Level 3-5 attainment has dropped by 24 since the introduction of CfEnNQs (see Table 1)

Only around a half of this is due to changed S4 curricular structures11 The reductions in enrolment and attainment have impacted differentially across the ability range

with the least able suffering significantly greater losses in enrolment and attainment this compounds Scotlandrsquos existing problems of social justice and equality of opportunity It is not yet fully clear why this is so several factors are considered in Section 3

12 The reductions in enrolment and attainment have impacted differentially across specific curricular areas with for example some Modern Languages subjects sustaining Level 3 enrolmentattainment losses of up to 88 at Level 3 and up to 61 overall (see Table 3) Aspects of BusinessComputing Technology and the Arts have also suffered disproportionally

2 Impact on the Secondary Curriculum

Coherent development of the nature and structure of the curriculum have been largely absent from the national CfE development processes summarised in Appendix 1 Much national development time was devoted to the development of a set of Experiences and Outcomes for each course in the curriculum but much less to the development of the secondary curriculum itself S1-3 were included in a 3-15 curriculum without consultation as evidenced in Section 21 and as noted in Appendix 1 no national paper was published regarding the 15-18 lsquoSenior Phasersquo until 2009

Priestley (2010) suggests that

ldquoDevelopments such as CfE through their renewed emphasis on teachers as agents of change have exposed the current paucity of curriculum theory across policymaking practitioner and academic communities and this in turn has led to a lack of capacity to deal with the issues that such curricula throw up as they are translated from policy to practicerdquo [p24]

It is difficult to disagree with this given the findings of this (and the subsequent) section of this paper However Learning and Teaching Scotland did attempt to support curricular thinking including the display of some proposed curricular structures in the ldquoBuilding Your Curriculumrdquo section of its website However a significant minority of respondents to this study suggest that the major inputs to curricular thinking came from a single LTS Officer Mr Eddie Broadley later joined by Mr Kenneth Muir (initially as Chief Inspector (Secondary) then as Strategic Director (Curriculum) at Education Scotland (ES)) and by the members of an independently founded multi-authority group known as the Building Our Curriculum Self-Help (BOCSH) group - populated by headteachers and local authority officers ndash which produced five booklets exemplifying aspects of CfE including both phases of the secondary curriculum Most other respondents could not describe the extent of national curricular support or analysis but one mentioned a group known as ldquoearly adoptersrdquo - presumably of CfE - but no publications exemplification or evidence of their status in the CfE development process could be located (by personal research or via respondents)

21 Curricular Rationale(s)

When addressing groups of curricular leaders or headteachers (eg Tayside headteachers 28 November 2012) Kenneth Muir by then Strategic Director (Curriculum) at ES suggested that there was no one approach to developing a secondary curriculum structure to successfully implement CfE as it had come to exist He pointed to many factors including the size of school location community identity school values


nature and numbers of associated primary schools college provision consortium arrangements vocational learning opportunities denominational status management structures and above all the needs of the schoolrsquos individual pupils as factors influencing the curricular model

This had not however been the thinking of the National Debate or of the Curriculum Review Group (CRG) [see Appendix 1] in both cases an upgrade of both 5-14 and the existing 14-16 Standard Graderdquooldrdquo NQ courses had been envisaged The change came about with the insertion of ldquoS1-S3rdquo in several places in the ministerial response (Scottish Executive 2004b) to A curriculum for excellence (Scottish Executive 2004a) This was not consulted upon nor were the reasons for this change to a longer pre-qualifications phase in secondary clearly identified (and the prior 5-14 curriculum was not eliminated until a Scottish Learning Festival speech by the then minister Fiona Hyslop in 2008) This was perhaps surprising not least because Mr Douglas Osler while Her Majestyrsquos Senior Chief Inspector of Schools had repeatedly suggested that not all secondary schools made the best use of S1-2 His successor as HMSCI attended many of the CRG meetings although not a formal member but it is not clear if he and the CRG discussed whether a 50 addition to the non-qualification period might be beneficial or whether this was a direct political decision Whatever the reason behind the decision the extension of the Broad General Education (BGE) to three years inevitably caused curriculum designers to consider what arrangements could be made for a changed and truncated middle secondary phase

The essential argument of those who have radically changed their S4 (and in a much smaller number of cases S5 and S6) curricula is that the time available in one year is insufficient to permit teachers to teach the content of eight courses for learners to deal with the volume of learning or for either group to deal with the burdens of assessment This derives from the fact that nNQs like ldquooldrdquo National Qualifications (oNQs) are deemed by SQA to require 120 hoursrsquo teaching and learning and 40 hours for other activities such as assessment reinforcement and remediation Although oNQs were designed to be carried out by senior pupils in one year as part of a five-course programme of study they were also widely employed in S34 over two years as part of an eight course programme thus providing each S34 course with significantly more time than intended by SQA

A number of educational leaders including according to a large minority of respondents a few members of the Association of Directors of Education (ADES) took the 275 hoursrsquo teaching time available in a school week multiplied by the number of weeks in S4 divided by 160 hours and deduced that the final number came to somewhere between 6 and 7 courses Deducting further time for holidays illness etc some decided six S4 courses were all that couldshould be sustained in the time available This arithmetic might be seen as simplistic however as the 40-hour part of the NQ specification has always been considered notional and has not always been fully used by schools or departments Further factors contradicting the 6-course concept come from the understanding that the later parts of pre-CfE S34 courses were often more likely to contain examinable material than the S3 parts that reducing over-assessment saves time that the school session does not need to start in the third week of August and that S3 work carried out under the new scheme might well overtake aspects of National 3 4 and among the most able National 5 courses thus saving S4 teaching time

As will be seen in Section 22 the issue crystalised when a few ADES members began to mandate a 6-course structure across their authorities This caused some workload and leadership challenges as some schools which had already opted for seven or eight courses were required to change sometimes quite late in the development process to a 6-course S4 structure Interestingly HMIeEducation Scotland have not offered endorsement to the 6-column structure any more than to the other curricular structures The MuirBroadley national presentations exemplified the S4-6 curriculum through three school models with 5 6 and 7 columns respectively Mr Muirrsquos successor has also carefully declined to support any particular structure at more recent national conferences even though a speaker from another part of the national governance hierarchy at some of these meetings has strongly espoused the 6-column model

Leaving the national and authority issues to the side for a moment it should be acknowledged that much thought and invention has taken place - in individual schools in multi-school working groups and to a notably lesser extent in local authorities - in attempts to retain the traditional Scottish virtues of curricular breadth and strong attainment in the middle school Altogether five schools of thought have emerged


(1) The easiest to describe is a group of approximately - because not all schools publish their S4 curriculum on any website document (causing some limited further research andor interpolation to be carried out) - 50 schools which have elected to (and been permitted to) retain the traditional structure with partmuch of S3 devoted to ensuring enough time to allow students to study eight courses in S4 This may be seen as contrary to the spirit of CfE (and has been thus described by some national CfE conference speakers) but if pupils are able to complete the earlier curricular stages in enough time to permit 8 courses to be successfully studied it may not be a significant issue Some 8-column schools have since been inspected without criticism of their curriculum or attainment

(2) More schools (circa 100) have dropped their eighth column spread the subjects necessary to maintain (and hopefully enhance) learning pathways across the remaining seven columns managed their S4 start dates and their use of the 40 hoursrsquo assessmentremediation time and also engaged their teaching colleagues in discussions of how to maximise teaching time (in some cases through changed school week structures) Again both inspections and attainment figures suggest that their pupils appear not to have suffered

The approximately (3) 150 schools with 6-column and (4) 20 with 5-column structures although not suffering from time pressure experience other problems Discussions with schools as part of the data gathering for this study have shown that parentalpupil S3-4 choices in schools with narrowed or very narrowed curricula still mostly resemble a part of those in the previous broader curriculum in that many parents and their children choose English Mathematics (both generally compulsory) and either two Sciences and a Social Subject or two Social Subjects and a Science effectively leaving all other subjects to compete (or to be unable to compete in 5-column schools) for the remaining column choice As will be seen in Section 34 the effects of a ldquoS1-S3 general phase 56-column S4 structure traditional choicesrdquo model have been profound for many subjects including some of the ldquomajorrdquo subjects Thus the issues of narrowed (or very narrow) curricula are potentially compounded by a distorted curriculum in 56-column schools The situation in ldquo5-subjectrdquo schools is particularly stark in this context

(5) A further model exists where 56-column schools attempt to carry two (or three or more) subjects straight through to Higher examinations in S5 while fitting two years of three (or two) Level 3-5 courses alongside Unfortunately this seems a poorer alternative for many average or lower ability pupils than 5 Level 3-5s followed by 5 Level 4-6s A few of these schools indicate on their websites that they have taken the 56-column route to provide an ldquointegrated Senior Phaserdquo with enhanced pathways for all learners Proper integration of the senior curriculum - including availability of an enhanced range of courses at more curricular levels significantly enhanced vocational and tertiary opportunities with consortium arrangements and external co-providers to further develop learner pathways - is a very worthwhile goal but this is not achieved simply by ldquoTimetabling 101rdquo methods such as lining up 5-5ndash5 columns in S4-6 or even 6ndash6ndash6

Respondents identified six principal causes of the multiple responses to curricular change

Limited time for learners to study their initial certificate courses (one year instead of the previous two leading to the potential for more able learners to experience three lsquotwo-term dashesrsquo instead of the former two ndash interestingly the National debate outcomes included reducing the existing two to one)

Uncertainty about how best to use the three years of the BGE (S1-S3) particularly the S3 year to prepare learners for the first diet of examinations

A perceived lack of national and local authority advice on the Senior Phase (S4-6) Concerns about the qualityquantity of information from SQA and the Scottish Government in 2008-

2010 and the subsequent years during which the first learner cohort worked towards initial qualifications A large minority of interviewees suggested that little information on Level 3 coursesqualifications was available until ldquothe last minuterdquo influencing their schoolauthority to present at least some Level 3 pupils for Level 4 examinations NB this situation appears to persist as a few schools only mention Levels 4 and 5 in their curricular information]

The gradual working through of the twin impacts of removing the national secondary curricular guidelines in 1999 and relaxing the restrictions on secondary headteachers as set out in Circular 32001 (Scottish Executive 2001)

The decline in local authoritiesrsquo capacity to control support and monitor their schoolsrsquo curricular provision due to staff downsizing cost-cutting and other factors subsequent to the economic crisis and the reduced funding deriving from the SNP governmentCOSLA Concordat


22 An S4 ldquoPostcode Lotteryrdquo

The phrase ldquopostcode lotteryrdquo is overused However in returning to the differing stances adopted by local authorities and schools with respect to their S4 curricular structures - ranging from a formal council requirement to follow one model (usually 6 subjects in S4) to allowing each school to select 5 to 8 courses to suit their lsquolocal needsrsquo - the use of the phrase is perhaps not inappropriate There is significantly greater variation in secondary curricular structures and examination presentation patterns in the CfE era than was previously the case with O Grades Standard Grades or the subsequent Higher Still programme

In November 2012 Mr Kenneth Muir suggested to the Tayside conference noted earlier that the S4 curricular balance in schools comprised a ldquomixed economyrdquo (56 to 8 subjects) in 11 EAs 8 subjects in 5 Education Authorities 78 subjects in 4 EAs 7 subjects in 5 EAs 6 subjects in 7 EAs and 5 subjects in only ldquo1 or 2 schoolsrdquo Since then neither the government nor the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has published such data Therefore the websites and documentation of all Scottish secondary schools were accessed for this paper The results of this analysis as shown in Figure 1 represent a significant change from the 2012 position with the overall picture being one of increasing diversity both within and across local authorities


Figure 1 Distribution of S4 Curricular StructuresA single figure indicates that there is a uniform structure across the local authority xy indicates that two structures are present otherwise the range of structures is given]

The most significant features are

(i) The contiguous geographical group of 6-subject authorities in the North and North-East (respondents to this study suggest this is not accidental but rather the result of a partial ADES agreement)

(ii) The failure after 3 years of 6-column-only arrangements to increase beyond Mr Muirrsquos 6 authorities of 2012

(iii) The growth of 5-column schools across authorities from ldquo1 or 2rdquo to over 15 (iv) The increase of mixed-model authorities to 18 (v) Although the curriculum cannot be constructed to prioritise pupils who for various reasons

have to change school during their career Figure 1 also suggests that it has become harder for learners to move around either between authorities or even within authorities in many cases

It would seem accurate to suggest that the combination of CfE the withdrawal of secondary curricular guidelines around 2000 and the retention of Circular 32001 after the demise of the Curricular Flexibility initiative in 20034 have together provided some authorities and many headteachers with the ability to significantly vary their curricula This could potentially have been a positive step if well led and implemented However this has not been the outcome as Scotland clearly no longer has a coherent national curricular approach - at least in S4 although this will inevitably have consequences for S5 and S6 ndash and as seen in Section 3 many learners have been disadvantaged as a result It would seem reasonable to suggest that this outcome is an unintended consequence of the various governance changes to the CfE development process and that this should be a concern to governments and local authorities alike However there is no identifiable evidence of governmental acknowledgement of the problem or of remedial action

As will be seen later the change from a fairly uniform 8-column S34 structure before CfE necessarily has an impact on course enrolment and attainment If all schools changed from 8 courses to 6 the overall course enrolment rate in S4 would consequently fall by approximately 25 A similar effect might be expected on attainment although the relationship between the two measures is not necessarily one of direct proportion Since the change to 6 courses appears unintended by those governing the CfE development process (it is not suggested as a requireddesirable action in any published national CfE documentation from 2004 to 2012) and since there is no obvious evidence from HMIe inspections that many (any) schools with 7-column (or even 8-column) structures are failing their learners because of their curricular stance it seems strange that a group of councils and some individual schools have thrown aside both the traditionally prized breadth of Scottish earlymiddle secondary education and the opportunity for higher attainment for their learners (and thus a better attainment profile for their schoolauthority) Section 3 demonstrates that enrolment has not yet dropped by 25 - although it is very close ndash but that this is by no means entirely due to 56-course implementation This suggests that if schools continue down the path to 6 (or 5) courses - driven by varying factors - the enrolment and attainment positions will almost certainly decay to a significantly greater extent with inevitable consequences for international comparisons and much more importantly for learners

3 Consequences for Course Enrolment and Attainment

As with the curricular section of this paper this section concentrates on SCQF Levels 3-5 The S56 curriculum and Levels 6 and 7 are not examined as it is too early in the implementation process to accurately determine trends in these cases Level 6 results improved in 2015 but such one-year or two-year improvements to results are not previously unknown and they do not necessarily imply long-term trends in improvement

31 Availability of Data on Enrolment and Attainmnet

Publicly-available qualifications data comes from SQArsquos post-appeal results for Sessions 2012-13 2013-14 and pre-appeal data for 2014-15 permitting comparison of learner enrolment and attainment in the last year


of the old qualifications (S Grade plus oNQs) and the equivalent enrolment and attainment in the first two years of the new qualifications (some dwindling oNQs plus the nNQs) No researcher newspaper or media source has attempted to make use of this publicly available SQA data presumably since considerable data collection and analysis is required in examining the S Grade and oNQ data from 2012-13 and the corresponding oNQ and nNQ data from 2013-14 and 2014-15 The situation is further clouded by the issue of statements by some councils and schools after the appearance of the SQA pre-appeal data in August 2014 suggesting that it is not possible to compare the old qualifications with the new despite their still being firmly linked to the SCQF Level structure and thus directly comparable

32 SCQF Level 3-5 Enrolment and Attainment Patterns

Session 2012-13 was the last session before the introduction of the new SQA National 3 4 and 5 qualifications in August 2013 for examination in MayJune 2014 The enrolment and attainment figures from this session are used as a baseline for the calculation of subsequent performance in Sessions 2013-14 and 2014-15 It could however be argued that this is unsuitable Enrolment and attainment rates had declined from session 2007-08 stabilised in Sessions 2010-11 and 2011-12 only to decline again in session 2012-13 (SQA 2000 - 2013) and therefore this could generate an argument for either the 2006-07 figures (as the ldquohigh water markrdquo) or the 2011-12 figures (as the last albeit transient period of stability) to form the baseline To avoid conflating other potential issues with the joint impact of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) initiative and nNQs a pragmatic stance has been adopted and the session immediately before the introduction of these twin initiatives has been adopted as baseline It should be noted that from the perspective of those promoting the way in which CfE and nNQs have been implemented this choice provides the most favourable possible portrayal of the declines illustrated in the statistics ie adoption of either of 2006-07 or 2011-12 as baseline would increase the extent of decline shown in the tables of this paper

Thus national enrolments and attainment are measured against the total SCQF 3-5 enrolments in 2012-13 (the 100 baseline for enrolment data) and the total SCQF 3-5 attainment in 2012-13 (the 100 baseline for attainment data) Table 1 shows the changing patterns of enrolment and attainment

Table 1 Enrolment and Attainment 2012-13 to 2014-15

[Figures from Attainment Statistics (August) 2015 (SQA 2015b) amp SQA annual data (SQA 2013 2014 2015a)]


As table 1 illustrates overall SCQF level 3-5 enrolment has dropped by 17 from 2012-13 to 2014-15 Two-thirds of this occurred in 2013-14 with a further drop in 2014-15 Attainment follows a similar but slightly worse pattern with a 24 drop in attainment from 2012-13 to 2014-15 However most of the attainment decline occurred in 2013-14 with a further drop roughly equivalent in numbers to that in enrolment in 2014-15

Given the S4 curricular distribution shown in Figure 1 S4 structural changes in some schools are necessarily the most significant factor in the 17 decline in enrolments and taken with the slight overall decline (1 per annum) in pupil rolls account for a majority of the drop in enrolment Since a few individual schools have adopted two-year processes for someall of their initial qualifications this will account for a little of the remaining decline However these factors do not account for the complete decline in enrolment nor do they account for a significant part of the highly significant 24 drop in attainment Strangely some national responses to earlier papers on the decline in enrolment have suggested that since this is largely linked to curricular change it is somehow normal or appropriate Previous sections of this paper along with Appendix 1 demonstrate that curricular narrowing and distortion were not an intended consequence of the implementation of CfE that these changes have been adopted as a result of individual schoolsauthorities perhaps failing to fully consider what structures might be achievable (and thus diminishing their learnersrsquo chances of attainment and achievement) and that schools which have moved to 7 courses (and apparently at least some of those which have stayed with 8 ndash few of these have so far been inspected) appear from attainment statistics and inspection reports to be as successful in providing their pupils with larger numbers of qualifications as those who seek a much narrower number of achievements for their learners Thus the disappearance of 92672 Level 3-5 enrolments alongside 120035 Grade A-C passes at these levels should not be considered appropriate - or normal - losses

Before pursuing the overall declines it is worthwhile to examine the situation at SCQF Levels 3 4 and 5 separately Level 3 enrolment has been worst hit during the period dropping to a third of its 2012-13 level (from 119 of 2012-13 enrolment to 38) This is a highly significant change However it could be a sign of success for CfE and nNQs if learners had moved up to be presented for higher-level qualifications than would have been the case in the pre-CfE period There is some limited evidence of upward migration particularly from Level 4 to 5 but this is set against the substantial overall declines shown in Table 1 and therefore cannot be seen as positive Attainment at Level 3 is of equal concern dropping from 12 to 38 Thus in two years 44001 Level 3 enrolments have disappeared alongside 41153 passes

At Level 4 the situation is again worrying with smaller percentage drops but larger numbers disappearing Here there appeared to be some evidence of candidates moving up from Level 4 to Level 5 (given the sharp rise in enrolments at Level 5) in session 2013-14 but in small numbers compared to the Level 4 decline This putative shift from Level 4 to Level 5 is however less apparent in session 2014-15 By 2014-15 Level 4 enrolment had dropped to around three-quarters of its 2012-13 level ie from 337 of the 2012-13 level to 243 The attainment picture at Level 4 is similar dropping from 339 to 247 Thus in two years 51162 Level 4 enrolments and 46220 passes have disappeared

At Level 5 there is some evidence of positive change in that enrolments grew raising the possibility that candidates in the nNQ system might be capable of demonstrating success at higher SCQF levels than in the previous systems However rising enrolment levels may be seen from Table 1 to have been accompanied by a significant decline in attainment raising issues about whether teachers have presented candidates for qualifications at the appropriate level either in 2013-14 (with its significant rise in Level 5 enrolment but significant decline in attainment) or in 2014-15 (where Level 5 enrolment dropped back sharply towards the 2012-13 level accompanied by a further drop in attainment) Level 5 enrolment rose from 544 of the total 2012-13 enrolment to 571 in 2013-14 but fell back to 549 in 2014-15 The attainment picture at Level 5 is different to this but is regrettably similar to that at Levels 3 and 4 since Level 5 attainment fell from 541 to 475 over the two years The combined effect is that in two years Level 5 enrolment has risen by 2491 while attainment has fallen by 32 662 passes This represents a widening of the gap between those who enter a Level 5 course and those who pass of 35153 ndash again a significant decline although Level 5 pupils perhaps unsurprisingly have suffered least among the three groups


Such Level 3-5 statistics raise issues of social justice as less able and lower middle-ranking learners appear to have differentially disappeared from both passes and enrolments However the more able are not exempt from concern The bulge in 2013-14 Level 5 enrolments raises issues around whether teacherdepartment school presentations for Level 5 qualifications were well judged in all cases as a large rise in Level 5 presentations led to a significant drop in passes

33 Enrolment ndash to ndash Attainment Conversion Rates

The highly significant Level 3-5 issues raised above lead to consideration of the extent to which candidates presented for a qualification at a given SCQF level can convert this into a pass (Grades A-C) at that level Many factors affect this including the quality preparedness and understanding of teachers the quality of teaching the quality extent and appropriateness of resources (cf the National Debate priorities ndash see Appendix 1) the effectiveness of assessment and examination processes the extent and quality of parental support and the effectiveness of pupilsrsquo learning Inevitably a double change of 3-18 curriculum and all Level 3-7 qualifications (the largest educational change attempted in Scotland) adds further variables including how well teachers are trained in (and how well they learn) the new arrangements how well standards and requirements are explained (and understood) how well pupils and parents are informed and how effectively and timeously (and to what extent) new course resources and documentation are provided

Conversion rates from enrolment to achievement of a pass have been fairly stable in Scotland in the period since the introduction of ldquooldrdquo NQs in 2000 Overall conversion rates have generally lain in the ldquolow 90 per centrdquo range It is therefore important to examine if the change process associated with CfE and nNQs has impacted on this Table 2 illustrates the global (SCQF 3-5) and individual SCQF Level conversion rates for the period covered by this paper

Table 2 From Enrolment to Attainment Conversion rates 2012-13 to 2014-15

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment

Attainment Conversion

Enrolment Attainment Conversion


SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796

Total 544403 499914 918 479638 401948 838 451731 379879 841[Figures from Attainment Statistics (August) 2015 (SQA 2015b) amp SQA statistical spreadsheets (SQA 2013 2014 2015a)]

As may be seen Levels 3-5 all fitted within the ldquolow 90srdquo band in 2012-13 Despite the significant decline in Level 3 and 4 enrolment and attainment shown in Table 1 Table 2 demonstrates that the conversion rate for the remaining candidates at those levels has remained within the ldquolow 90srdquo band Level 5 however demonstrates a very different pattern A highly significant drop in conversion rate took place and was followed by a further slight decline in 2014-15 bringing the conversion rate for Level 5 into the ldquohigh 70srdquo band and causing the overall Level 3-5 conversion rate to drop to 838 in 2013-14 although there has been a slight recovery to 841 in 2014-15 perhaps because the number of Level 5 enrollees was more realistic than in 2013-14

Several possible factors may account for such a drop Given the 2015 controversy surrounding Higher Mathematics (and SQArsquos consequent need to reduce the pass mark to a surprisingly low 35) the suggestion that examination standards have not been correctly set will attract some adherents However the failure of SQA to effectively manage the examination system in 2000 notwithstanding the Scottish examination body is highly experienced and contains staff whose expertise (assuming it is heard and acted upon) in developing implementing and quality-assuring qualifications and examination instruments deserves


the strong international reputation it enjoys The Higher Mathematics difficulty appears to derive from a situation where previously-publicised internal differences between representatives of the exam agency and one of its examination teams led to a wholesale turnover of exam setters and the key examiners with a consequent lack of continuity a potential decline in team expertise and a struggle to reassert appropriate standards Across a whole set of qualifications ndash and examination teams ndash it is unlikely that such situations would or could occur frequently enough to generate problems of the scale demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2

A second possible explanation is that somemany teachers across Scotland have inappropriately assessed pupils as being capable of a higher level of pass within the new system than within the old This prompts a subsidiary question of whether teachers perceive the new courses and qualifications to be ldquoeasierrdquo than the old and have thus moved significant numbers up particularly from Level 4 to level 5 with consequent failures at the higher level There is less reason to suspect that this has happened between Levels 3 and 4 as the problem here appears to be one of failure to enter pupils for as many qualifications as they might be capable of attaining whatever the local curricular system However a substantial minority of teachers and headteachers interviewed during school visits suggested that SQA material for Levels 4 and 5 were available well before those for Level 3 and that this influenced the choice of Level for many candidates A small minority of teacher evidence suggested that some teachers had ldquomanaged the situationrdquo (respondent 103) to avoid presenting pupils at Level 3 to avoid tri-level teaching A further large minority of teachers and headteachers interviewed also suggested that they had had conflicting advice from SQA andor other national personnel at national and local training events Since there is little ldquohardrdquo evidence to support the concerns raised by these teachers there remains the issue of whether some or many teachers fully understood presentation level boundaries in Session 2013-14 although some of the statistical evidence suggests a partial return towards prior presentation standards in 2014-15

There is a third factor however as 2013-14 saw the disappearance of Standard Grade Some ldquourban mythologyrdquo exists with respect to S Grade suggesting that since pupils were presented at two adjacent levels (Credit and General or General and Foundation) they gained two awards and so inflated earlier (pre-CfE) figures Examination of SQA annual statistical reports up to 2013 demonstrates that this is not so although pupils were presented at two levels they were only credited with one award ndash that of the higher level passed Thus S Grade was like both forms of NQ a ldquoone pupil one passrdquo system However the ability of pupils to sit examinations at two levels meant that the actual failure rate at the higher level was disguised by pupilsrsquo ability to pass at the lower especially since recent governmentSQA statistics (eg 2015b) unhelpfully tend to conflate all three levels of S Grade pass

This situation is different with ldquooldrdquo and ldquonewrdquo NQs where the conversion rate for Access 3 National 3 and National 4 may be seen from SQA statistics (SQA 2015b) to subscribe to the ldquolow 90 srdquo conversion rate but for Intermediate 1 Intermediate 2 - and now National 5 - conversion rates consistently lie between 73 and 81 No published explanation exists for this difference in conversion rates The difference has however clearly impacted on attainment (but not enrolment) as Scotland moved from a mixed economy of S Grades and oNQs to a single regime of nNQs This third factor partially helps to explain the difference between the pre- and post-CfEnNQ attainment figures but should be treated with caution as oNQs and nNQs have roughly similar conversion rates and S Gradersquos higher conversion rate includes those who sat at one level but gained an award at a lower level This is therefore not the entire solution to the gap between enrolment and attainment particularly since it should also be carefully noted that it is indeed fortunate that the pass rate of the internally marked National 4s (93 overall) far exceeds that of the previous externally-marked Intermediate 1s (75) or the attainment decline from 2012-13 to 2014-15 would have been much more marked

Of the three factors considered above the first ndash a systemic issue within SQA ndash is discounted as issues in SQA whether of the widespread nature of the NQ problems of the year 2000 or more specific such as 2015 Higher Mathematics tend to appear either through external statistical analysis or in an age of social media through the comments of ldquointerested partiesrdquo The second and third factors however cannot be discounted so easily

34 Issues in Specific Curricular Areas


The impact of the curricular narrowing and circular distortion resulting from schoolsrsquo 6-column or 5-column approaches to S4 is evident in the published SQA enrolment and attainment statistics Significant reductions are apparent in Modern Languages BusinessComputing and some of the Creative amp Aesthetic subjects Even the Sciences and Social Subjects have been subject to enrolment and attainment declines greater than the overall figures All of these however have performed much better at Level 5 than at Levels 3 or 4 with the exception of Computing and some minority subjects The gravity of the situation is best illustrated through Modern Languages the largest subject group of those disadvantaged by CfE

Table 3 illustrates the enrolment and attainment for the Modern Languages the core subjects of English and Mathematics are shown to allow comparison of the extent of growth or decline

Table 3 Modern Languages SCQF 3-5 Enrolment amp Attainment Before amp After CfE

Session 2012-2013 (Dec figures) 2014-2015 (Aug figures)Uptake Attainment Total

UptakeTotal

AttainmentUptake Attainment Total

UptakeTotal

Attain-ment

SCQF 3 SCQF4 SCQF5 SCQF3 SCQF4 SCQF5 SCQF3 SCQF4 SCQF5 SCQF3 SCQF4 SCQF5

English 4783 30485 44679 4322 28967 41091 79947 74380 2387 22123 46536 2224 19425 40322 71046 61971 change -50 -275 +4 -485 -33 -2 -12 -165Maths 19459 28353 38221 18710 23913 31420 86033 74043 7957 30083 41513 10266 25515 28849 79553 64630 change -59 +6 +85 -46 +6 -9 -8 -13

Chinese 93 68 84 93 61 79 245 233 60 73 95 58 72 86 228 216 change -355 +75 +13 -375 +18 -+9 -7 -75French 3293 11417 13836 3003 11049 13574 28546 27626 403 4197 10728 382 4088 9611 15328 14081 change -88 -64 -225 -875 -63 -29 -47 -49Gaelic(L) 42 111 200 42 111 200 371 353 8 35 110 3 33 97 153 138 change -81 -70 -47 -81 -70 -515 -59 -61German 628 2314 2983 582 2284 2921 5925 5787 90 789 2231 84 764 2364 3110 3488 change -855 -66 -25 -855 -665 -20 -48 -397Italian 57 91 297 50 80 290 445 420 27 55 222 27 54 210 304 291 change -525 -395 -255 -46 -325 -275 -32 -305Spanish 1202 2674 3768 1138 2455 4608 7644 7201 260 1622 4093 256 1548 3670 5975 5474 change -785 -395 +85 -775 -37 +2 -22 -24Urdu 7 25 71 7 25 71 103 103 13 18 49 13 18 44 80 75 change +86 -28 -31 42 16 -38 -23 -27

Such a decline would in previous eras almost certainly have caused demands for action whether by HMIe or the media (cf HMI Modern Languages report of 1998) Strangely there seems little call for scrutiny of what must be seen as a situation equally worthy of evaluation and of urgent improvement The extent of decline in Modern Languages in the first year of CfE was brought to the attention of the Scottish government by several means some quite public The situation further declined in session 2014-15 As of yet no acknowledgement of the extent of the problem or plans for improvement have been evinced by the Scottish government

The percentages given in this paragraph reflect gains or losses from 2012-13 to 2014-15 the 2012-13 to 2013-14 gains and losses are given in brackets The core subjects (EnglishGaidhlig and Mathematics) are used as a baseline against which to assess Modern Languages Enrolment in English and Mathematics has fared well both against the overall figure for all Level 3-5 courses and against all the languages except Chinese although Gaidhlig is not as strong the changes are English -12 (-5) Maths -8 (-6) and Gaidhlig -18 (-7) Attainment changes are similarly related to the overall figures but much better than those for Languages English -165 (-10) Maths (13) -13 and Gaidhlig -21 (-10) Since these three are core subjects for virtually every pupil and thus are less likely to be discarded in a seven-column or six-column curricular structure these outcomes are perhaps unsurprising All other subjects are however possible discards for pupils in the more restricted curricular structures (and some more so than others)


In Modern Languages the situation at Levels 3-5 is starkly different from the core subjects The four largest (by uptake) languages - French Spanish German and Italian ndash have all declined sharply In the case of French and German the lsquotraditionalrsquo Scottish MLs it would be difficult to describe the situation as other than a major downturn Both French and German have dropped by 47-48 in enrolment and by 40-49 in attainment over the two years Thus half of their candidates disappeared and almost a half of their attainment followed The situation for Languages in S4 in Scotland was already serious it is now near to critical particularly for German and several minority languages must be close to deletion by SQA Particularly worrying for the Scottish Governmentrsquos 1 + 2 Strategy is the issue that the lsquogrowthrsquo MFL Spanish has also suffered although less badly Spanish replaced German as the second commonest MFL in recent years and has consistently swum against the tide of MFL decline growing year on year Since 2013 however it has dropped by 22 in enrolment and 24 in attainment ndash above the average drop in enrolment although held up to some extent by a much more positive Level 5 situation (and this appears to have fed into the 2015 Higher results where Spanish grew by almost 25) Gaelic (Learners) sustained the greatest losses of all (59 of enrolment and 61 of attainment) Along with the previously noted decline in Gaidhlig this is a particularly serious issue as this is a Scottish Government priority Only Chinese shows signs of improvement although this is based solely on one year of recovery and therefore does not constitute a trend

4 Conclusions

Those engaged in analysis of examination performance whether at department school authority or Inspectorate levels tend to seek trends rather than individual events The problem in evaluating the effectiveness of new initiatives such as Curriculum for Excellence and ldquonewrdquo National Qualifications is that the passage of time is required before trends become apparent This paper is written at perhaps the first moment when attainment or curricular trends can be evaluated at least in S4 (as three years of data ndash two of CfE and a pre-CfE baseline ndash are now available) This paper therefore breaks new ground but it will be necessary to repeat this process of evaluation until 20192020 when all stages of the nNQ framework will have developed several yearsrsquo data thus permitting all relevant trends to be examined

Clearly most of the reduction in enrolment and a small majority of the attainment loss are due to changing curricular structures The extent of this has clearly been influenced by those councils that have mandated their secondary schools to move to 6 courses in S4 as 56-course curricular structures are far less common elsewhere Examination of school websites (where functioning) school handbooks (where available andor current) and school course choice and curricular documentation suggests that more than half of Scotlandrsquos secondary schools have not (yet) moved to 56 courses in S4 Given that inspections and SQA results appear to suggest that 7 courses (or possibly 8 courses) can be successfully used and arguably more successfully used - if they raise attainment without over-stretching learners or teachers - it appears that there is an urgent need to investigate why 5 or 6 courses have gained almost half of the ldquocurricular marketrdquo in S4 with potential longer-term issues for S5 and S6

More urgent however is the need to resolve the current curricular and qualifications ldquolotteryrdquo for the benefit of future learners of all abilities The principal findings of the paper are set out in Sections 2 and 3 and summarized in Section 1 In responding to these findings several steps should be taken Again these are divided into two sets

Curriculum 1 The diversity of S4 course structures needs to be resolved before the situation demonstrated in this paper

worsens further If schools offering 7 or even 8 courses can support students to success despite the limited time in the current CfE system there is little (or no) need for 6 or 5 course approaches

2 The process in point 1 could be facilitated and simplified by removing the S1-3 ldquoBroad General Educationrdquo and returning to an S1-2 period There are no inherent benefits in a 3-year period ndashit was neither asked for within the National Debate nor consulted upon thereafter - and the Experiences and Outcomes currently covered in S3 can continue to be overtaken there partially or wholly while allowing schools and hopefully local authorities to return to less-pressured andor less extreme means of ensuring that pupils of all abilities can maximize their learning achievement and attainment

3 The return to an 8-column S34 should be accompanied by the development and issue of national curricular advice to all local authorities and headteachers to ensure that a broad and balanced curriculum


is experienced by all learners across the ability range and that curricular narrowing or significant distortion cannot take place in individual schools or local authorities

4 Such national curricular advice should be developed by a broadly-based committee with representatives of all layers of educational governance including end-users Headteacher and teacher representatives should be nominated for their ability and understanding rather than because they represent unions or professional associations (although these should also be represented)

5 HMIeEducation Scotland has maintained a neutral position with respect to S4 curricular structures Given their evaluative expertise it would be helpful to the processes above for them to report on the strengths and weaknesses observed in schools with differing curricular approaches and for this to be input into the programme to revise Curriculum for Excellence to better meet the needs of all learners

6 The above steps would also mitigate the dangers of having for the first time since 1977 no fallback position (or subsequent initiative) to take forward the Scottish curriculum

Qualifications (see Section 3)7 The initial priority in improving qualifications is the revision of CfE so that the initial nNQ qualifications

can return to a 2-year process8 There is a clear need to ensure that the revision of CfE is matched by a review of nNQs to ensure that

they effectively support the learning of learners of all abilities and backgrounds9 An appropriate range of vocationally-based courses as envisaged in the National Debate (and by the

CRG) should be created to ensure that the achievement and attainment of Level 3 and 4 learners is accredited in ways understood by learners parents and employers alike The findings of the Wood Report (2014) should be incorporated into this process

10 The importance of developing appropriate skills for learning life and work for all learners and of acknowledging wider achievement in a meaningful (to learners and employers) should not be lost in these revision processes

11 The need for and effectiveness of an S3 record of achievement should be reviewed

There is no clear evidence that the Scottish politico-educational governance system ndash whether in the national local authority or school layers - is planning or developing strategies to resolve the issues set out in this paper although at least some of these issues have been raised in the Scottish parliament and its committees This paper is designed to support and assist the process of transition from discussion to analysis to action

[e jimdscott52btinternetcom]


References

Alexiadou N amp Ozga J (2002) Modernising education governance in England and Scotland Devolution and control European Educational Research Journal 1(4) 676 1113088 691 Retrieved from httpwwwwwwordscoukpdffreetoviewaspj=eerjampvol=1ampissue=4ampyear=2002amparticle=6_Alexiadou_EERJ_1_4

Education Scotland website Curriculum for Excellence section Available at httpwwweducationscotlandgovuklearningandteachingthecurriculum Last accessed September 2015

Education Scotland website Inspection section Available at httpwwweducationscotlandgovukinspectionandreview Last accessed September 2015

Hyslop F (2-009) Ministerial keynote address to the Scottish Learning Festival 2392009 Retrieved from wwweducation scotland govukvideofvideo_tcm4565678asp

Munn P Stead J McLeod G Brown J Cowie M McCluskey G Pirrie A and Scott J (2004) Schools for the 21st century the national debate on education in Scotland Research Papers in Education 19 (4) 433-452

Priestley M (2010) Curriculum for Excellence transformational change or business as usual Scottish Educational Review 42 (1) 23-36 Retrieved from httpserstiracukpdf293pdf

Priestley M amp Humes W (2010) The development of Scotlandrsquos Curriculum for Excellence Amnesia and Deacutejagrave Vu Oxford Review of Education 36 (3) pp 345-361

Scott J (2014) Unintended Consequences The Governance of Modern Foreign Language Learning in Scotland (1962-2014) Doctoral thesis Dundee University of Dundee Available from University of Dundee Library

Scottish Executive (2003) Educating for Excellence Choice and Opportunity The Executiversquos Response to the National Debate Edinburgh Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2004a) A curriculum for excellence Edinburgh Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2004b) A curriculum for excellence ministerial response Edinburgh Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2006a) A curriculum for excellence progress and proposals Edinburgh Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2001b) Circular 32001 Guidance on flexibility in the curriculum Edinburgh SEED

Scottish Government (2008a) Curriculum for excellence Building the Curriculum 3 A framework for learning and teaching Edinburgh Scottish Government

Scottish Government (2008b) A consultation on the next generation of national qualifications in Scotland Edinburgh Scottish Government

Scottish Government (2009b) Curriculum for excellence senior phase (A Management Board paper) Edinburgh Scottish Government

Scottish Government (2010a) Curriculum for excellence Building the Curriculum 5 A framework for assessment executive summary Edinburgh Scottish Government


Scottish Government (2010b) Curriculum for excellence Building the Curriculum 5 A framework for assessment Edinburgh Scottish Government

Scottish Government (2010c) Curriculum for excellence Building the Curriculum 5 A framework for assessment quality assurance and moderation Edinburgh Scottish Government

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) (2000-2014) Annual post-appeal (December) attainment statistics (spreadsheets for each year from 2000 to 2014) Edinburgh SQA

SQA (2015a) 2015 Pre-appeal (August) attainment statistics (spreadsheet) Edinburgh SQA

SQA (2015b) Attainment Statistics (August) 2015 (report) Edinburgh SQA


Appendix 1 Curricular and Qualifications Change As a Consequence of Fluctuating Governance

Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) initiative and the related ldquonewrdquo National Qualifications (nNQs) into Scottish secondary schools have at different times been the subject of both widespread approval and some significant concern This paper examines how their development and implementation have been governed and what outcomes for learners ndash for whose benefit the initiatives have been developed - are apparent after eleven years of planning and development five years of teaching and learning and two years of candidates studying for the initial S4 qualifications

CfE derives from the 2002 National Debate on Education initiated by a Labour-Liberal coalition education minister Cathy Jameson and is the latest of a sequence of changes both political and educational which have attempted to guide Scottish education away from the period of intense curricular regulation by input and output during the late 1980s and early 1990s (and particularly during Michael Forsythrsquos period as the Conservative Scottish education minister) towards a more open and consensual approach to the education of learners That process has been neither linear nor smooth as in the eleven years from 1992 nine education ministers (Scott 2014 p598) with perceptibly different priorities from the Thatcher Major Blair and devolved Labour-Liberal coalition governments attempted to provide leadership to Scottish education often despite brief ministerial tenures while attempting to govern and direct the introduction of a historically unparalleled grouping of seven overlapping national curricular and qualifications initiatives comprising the 5-14 Initiative (Primary Year 1 (P1) to Secondary Year 2 (S2)) the introduction of Standard Grade (S3-S4) qualifications the Howie initiative (S5-S6 abandoned) the Higher Still programme (S5-6 ultimately S3-6) ldquooldrdquo National Qualifications (as per Higher Still) and Curricular Flexibility (S3-S6 largely abandoned as CfE was superimposed upon it) A significant feature of the subsequent twelve years of CfE development from the National Debate onwards is that ndash despite the reduction from seven overlapping and at times mutually contradictory initiatives (Scott 2014) to one all-encompassing initiative - a consistent curricular pathway has still not been found as seen in Section 2

ldquoNewrdquo NQs arose from a very different beginning They were not part of the original CfE proposals although the ministerial response to the National Debate (Scottish Executive 2003) did indicate that a key priority was to ldquoto cut down the number of tests and exams and the amount of time spent on themrdquo (p3) The Curriculum Review Group report A curriculum for excellence (Scottish Executive 2004a) indicated that the Scottish Executive would ldquohave agreed by 2006 [my emphasis] the future structure of assessment and qualifications to support learning up to age 16 including simplifying the connections between assessment 5-14 Standard Grade and the National Qualificationsrdquo (p5) However no significant further consideration of qualifications took place until June 2008 when the new SNP minority government instituted a public consultation on their proposals (Scottish government 2008b) for a mixture of new and revised qualifications with the report in June 2009 The outcome was to replace the parallel SCQF Level 4 and 5 Standard (S) Grades and ldquooldrdquo NQs (oNQs) with new qualifications but to retain and review the existing Level 3 6 and 7 The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) was thus given a relatively short timescale (compared to the introduction of O Grades S Grades or oNQs) of four years to be ready for the ldquolaunchrdquo year of 2013-14

Development and Governance

Like the seven major initiatives before them CfE and nNQs have experienced multiple stages of politico-educational governance occupying the attentions of 5 education ministers and three national steering committees There have been four principal stages to this process displaying some commonality of purpose but this has been heavily diluted by significant changes to the intended outcomes

The National Debate

The National Debate on Education gathered the views of a wider than usual range of individuals and organisations (Munn et al 2004 pp 434-6) Key strengths identified included comprehensive education the 5-14 programme (in the top 3) retention of a broad and balanced curriculum until age 14 (the end of S2) the quality and professionalism of the teaching force and the non-profit public service nature of Scottish education (ibid) Main areas for development were identified as a need for greater resources for education


improvement of pupil behavior curricular reform increased curricular flexibility (somewhat ironically as this ministerial initiative was written over her predecessorsrsquo Curriculum Flexibility initiative designed to accomplish this) an improved balance of academic and vocational opportunities improved opportunities to meet the needs of individual learners and provision of a broad range of skills (including literacy numeracy ICT foreign languages craft-related parenting and health) A minority also called for earlier choice at age 13 (end of S1) These outcomes were considered by ministers - but largely rejected - in their response (Scottish Executive 2003) which in the first of several departures from the outcomes of the National Debate emphasised increased pupil choice reduction of testing reduced class sizes improved discipline renewal of school buildings more headteacher control of budgets and the curriculum teachers working across primary and secondary schools greater involvement of parents and a strengthened inspection regime

The Curriculum Review Group

A Curriculum Review Group (CRG) was established in 2003 to convert the findings of the (ministerial response to the) National Debate into curricular proposals It is worth noting given the history outlined in Section 1 that this group was established only three years after the first cohort sat oNQ examinations and several weeks before the national launch of the subsequent but ultimately stillborn Curriculum Flexibility initiative The CRG had a standard balance for such a committee covering governance groups from the national politico-educational hierarchy (civil servants inspectors and national agency leaders) through local authority professional leaders headteachers and unionsteachers to end users of the educational system

Their report A Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive 2004a) formally signaled the beginning of CfE Its main proposals were for a single unified curriculum for learners aged 3-18 (to be agreed by 2006) a ldquosimple and effectiverdquo (ibid) structure of assessment and qualifications uniting 5-14 Standard Grade and National Qualifications improved pace and challenge for learners improved transitions earlier and greater learner choice active learning ldquorobustly assessedrdquo (ibid) skills for work opportunities ldquodeclutteringrdquo (ibid) of the curriculum (particularly in key areas of primary) restructuring the early (S12) secondary curriculum the achievement of ldquobroad outcomesrdquo (ibid) from education and improved recording of learnersrsquo achievements

Further insight into the rapidly-changing nature of CfE came through the Ministerial response to A Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive 2004b) With a further change of minister it is perhaps unsurprising that the response signaled a further shift in priorities to (i) decluttering the primary curriculum (ii) overhauling the S1 to S3 curriculum (iii) recognising achievement via a Record of Achievement (by no means a new idea) (iv) new skills-for-work courses (v) a review of the Science curriculum (vi) reformed 5-14 assessment (vii) the repeal of Age and Stage regulations (although much of this had already happened with the removal of the secondary curricular guidelines and the appearance of Circular 32001 (SEED 2001)) (viii) ongoing review of oNQs in S3-S6 (ix) enhanced schoolcollege partnerships and (x) improved learning and teaching At this stage fewer than half of the original National Debate objectives had been retained and more than half of the key elements of the programme at this point were political additions which had not been the subject of consultation

The Curriculum Review Programme Board

Surprisingly given that this was one of only two periods of political stability in the CfE development process a new committee - the Curriculum Review Programme Board (CRPB) ndash almost immediately replaced the CRG The balance and composition of its membership was significantly different now chaired by an ex-director of education the committee had only one academic (as opposed to 6 end users) from beyond the nested national council and school hierarchies of Scottish education all the key educational thinkers from the first committee had departed and continuity was supplied only by a civil servant a union representative and one agency chief executive (although not for long in the last case)

As the Education Scotland website section on CfE indicates while ldquopractitioners drawn from different sectors of education and from around the country were seconded to Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS) to review existing guidelines and research findings hold focus groups with practitioners and begin the process of developing simpler prioritised curriculum guidelinesrdquo (Education Scotland website CfE timeline page) the CRPB continued its deliberations culminating in 2006 in A curriculum for excellence progress


and proposals (Scottish Executive 2006a) Its foreword correctly asserts that

lsquoThe values and principles of A Curriculum for Excellence have resonated with almost everyone with whom we have spokenrsquo (p1)

and also noted that lsquo a fundamental principlersquo (p1) of CfE lay in lsquoenabling high levels of attainmentrsquo (p1) [see Section 3] Values and principles are not working arrangements however and the document also signaled a retreat from the intended 3-18 curriculum to a pair of linked 3-15 and 15-18 curricula (p6) and a focus on the 3-15 aspect thus inevitably leaving the qualifications stage to be steered by the SQA and its working groups This bifurcation of philosophy practice and priorities represents a significant moment whose implications are seen in the main text both in how curricular structures developed and in the subsequent significant downturns in course enrolment and attainment in S4 Interestingly the 15-18 phase was not described (let alone exemplified or analysed) until the CfE Management Board paper curriculum for excellence senior phase (Scottish Government 2009b) written ndash according to respondents - by a senior civil servant and issued not for consultation but as a lsquoManagement Board discussion paperrsquo As will be seen later this seems a reflection of changed politicalcivil service approaches

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Progress and Proposals after two further years of work reviews of guidelines multiple focus groups and research (unspecified in the document) is that it remained so vague The documentrsquos stated time for implementation of CfE [cf Section 2-1-2] was now August 2008 (Scottish Executive 2006a) Despite this there were no concrete proposals for the curriculum no curricular advice for teachers no CPD strategy and most significantly no qualifications strategy or arrangements Respondents interviewed suggest that this lack of preparation after two years of work played a fundamental part in the subsequent delayed implementation of CfE The key secondary document Building the Curriculum 3 (Scottish Government 2008a) and the subsequent set of documents on assessment moderation and quality assurance Building the Curriculum 5 (parts 1-3) (Scottish Government 2010a-c) did not appear respectively until the proposed launch year and two years after that

More Direct Political Governance and the Project Management Board

The elections of 2007 brought a further significant governance change in the form of an SNP minority government Although initially perceived as open and pragmatic (eg Alexiadou amp Ozga 2002) a significant minority of respondents (largely those with some direct interface with the national hierarchy) to this and a previous study (Scott 2014) suggest that there has been a shift to a much more centralist and controlled government (and thus governance) approach by the SNP particularly since the acquisition of a working parliamentary majority Perhaps because of the vagueness apparent in Progress and Proposals or possibly because of the obvious time pressures (and likely union and local authority issues) inherent in its proposed timescale and incomplete preparations the new SNP minister felt it necessary to introduce further significant changes to the CfE programme including the replacement of the CRPB with a third body the Project Management Board (PMB) and a two-year delay of the implementation process However conducting a consultation on the name nature and structure of the national qualifications system - at the time when Progress and Proposals would have seen the CfE programme go live ndash seems less pragmatic than simply pursuing the previously agreed review of oNQs In the process 5-14 was quietly removed - despite its significant popularity during the National Debate and retention in subsequent reports - with the minister indicating in her keynote address to the Scottish Learning Festival that ldquothere was a lack of confidence in 5-14rdquo (Hyslop 2392009) thus finally clearing the way for an S1-S3 phase to complete the 3-15 curriculum

At this time the Experiences and Outcomes (Es and Os) related to each curricular area ndash but not specifically to subjects ndash were developed as part of the process outlined in Progress and Proposals The intent was to offer teachers pedagogical freedom and prevent top-down prescription of the curriculum but this proved wasteful as many schools carried out laborious audits of their existing curricula in attempts to establish what they should keep delete or add generating significant quantities of workload in the process and possibly as Priestley and Humes (2010 p23) suggest leading to the ldquounreflexive continuation of existing courses in many classroomsrdquo Priestley and Humes (2010) also suggest that CFE is confused from its philosophical basis onwards although given the changes of direction and emphasis identified earlier ldquobasesrdquo might seem more accurate They suggest (pp17-22) that CfE displays a fundamental dichotomy between aspects of a process curriculum and those of a mastery curriculum and that the prescription of Es and Os undermines the


intent of the Four Capacities (p24) Thus their view of CfE is of ldquoa mastery curriculum dressed up in the language of the process modelrdquo However whereas teachers were left to deal with the Es and Os of S1-3 much of the subsequent detailed work of the 15-18 curriculum has fallen to the SQA which - despite the tight timescale and the aforementioned LTS focus groups reviews and Es and Os ndash unsurprisingly chose to follow its own processes establishing Curriculum Area Review Groups (CARGs) to consider develop andor amend the qualifications structure for each aspect of the examinable 15-18 curriculum

The gestalt outcome of these many development processes may appear to an external observer to be not so much to be a unified curriculum as envisaged by the CRG but rather a pair of curricula and a related qualifications system all loosely attached at Levels 3 and 4 (although given the differences in their definition between curricular or qualifications contexts only just so) What is clear is that the ldquofinishedrdquo product CfE bears relatively little resemblance to the widely-agreed outcomes of the National Debate or to the principles set out by the CRG Although some change in the developmental process of a major initiative is inevitable this initiative has been almost completely transformed ndash and not for the better The weaknesses inherent in the constant changes introduced by successive Labour-Liberal education ministers the apparent ldquosnap decisionrdquo on qualifications by the first SNP minister and the time lag and radical changes of direction introduced by the creation (and subsequent actions) of the second steering committee are matched by the apparent inability of local authorities to make any meaningful or coherent contribution to the development of CfE and by an apparent lack of understanding by several directors of education and a significant minority of headteachers alike about the consequences for learners of their actions in amending their authorityschool curricular structures

Curriculum for Excellence needs urgent improvement potentially through a ldquomid-life upgraderdquo This should be conducted in parallel with a review of all three principal levels (national council and school) of the Scottish politico-educational governance system and the institution of an effective governance cycle (Scott 2014 pp291-327) at all levels so that the governance of future major developments may be more effectively (and more consistently) led and managed


7 HMIe do not appear to have specifically supported one curricular approach (nor do their initial inspection reports since 2014 appear to suggest that 56 courses is more successful in promoting achievementattainment than 78)

Qualifications (see Section 3)8 The number of courses available to an S4 learner varies from 5 to 8 with variable numbers of these

certificated within the year (see Figure 1) thus the number of S4 qualifications varies from 0 to 89 Overall Level 3-5 enrolment has dropped by 17 since the introduction of CfEnNQs (see Table 1)

Much but not all of this is attributable to changed S4 curricular structures10 Overall Level 3-5 attainment has dropped by 24 since the introduction of CfEnNQs (see Table 1)

Only around a half of this is due to changed S4 curricular structures11 The reductions in enrolment and attainment have impacted differentially across the ability range

with the least able suffering significantly greater losses in enrolment and attainment this compounds Scotlandrsquos existing problems of social justice and equality of opportunity It is not yet fully clear why this is so several factors are considered in Section 3

12 The reductions in enrolment and attainment have impacted differentially across specific curricular areas with for example some Modern Languages subjects sustaining Level 3 enrolmentattainment losses of up to 88 at Level 3 and up to 61 overall (see Table 3) Aspects of BusinessComputing Technology and the Arts have also suffered disproportionally

2 Impact on the Secondary Curriculum

Coherent development of the nature and structure of the curriculum have been largely absent from the national CfE development processes summarised in Appendix 1 Much national development time was devoted to the development of a set of Experiences and Outcomes for each course in the curriculum but much less to the development of the secondary curriculum itself S1-3 were included in a 3-15 curriculum without consultation as evidenced in Section 21 and as noted in Appendix 1 no national paper was published regarding the 15-18 lsquoSenior Phasersquo until 2009

Priestley (2010) suggests that

ldquoDevelopments such as CfE through their renewed emphasis on teachers as agents of change have exposed the current paucity of curriculum theory across policymaking practitioner and academic communities and this in turn has led to a lack of capacity to deal with the issues that such curricula throw up as they are translated from policy to practicerdquo [p24]

It is difficult to disagree with this given the findings of this (and the subsequent) section of this paper However Learning and Teaching Scotland did attempt to support curricular thinking including the display of some proposed curricular structures in the ldquoBuilding Your Curriculumrdquo section of its website However a significant minority of respondents to this study suggest that the major inputs to curricular thinking came from a single LTS Officer Mr Eddie Broadley later joined by Mr Kenneth Muir (initially as Chief Inspector (Secondary) then as Strategic Director (Curriculum) at Education Scotland (ES)) and by the members of an independently founded multi-authority group known as the Building Our Curriculum Self-Help (BOCSH) group - populated by headteachers and local authority officers ndash which produced five booklets exemplifying aspects of CfE including both phases of the secondary curriculum Most other respondents could not describe the extent of national curricular support or analysis but one mentioned a group known as ldquoearly adoptersrdquo - presumably of CfE - but no publications exemplification or evidence of their status in the CfE development process could be located (by personal research or via respondents)

21 Curricular Rationale(s)

When addressing groups of curricular leaders or headteachers (eg Tayside headteachers 28 November 2012) Kenneth Muir by then Strategic Director (Curriculum) at ES suggested that there was no one approach to developing a secondary curriculum structure to successfully implement CfE as it had come to exist He pointed to many factors including the size of school location community identity school values
























































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate














































































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate







































































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate



























































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate























































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate










































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate



































2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate





























2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Enrolment




SCQFLevel 3

64609 60093 930 27526 25289 919 20608 18940 919

SCQF Level 4

183591 169461 923 141395 127839 904 132429 123241 931

SCQF Level 5

296203 270360 913 310717 248820 801 298694 237698 796
















UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate



































UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate




























UptakeTotal


UptakeTotal

Attain-ment








4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate

























4 Conclusions






















References































The National Debate





































References































The National Debate
























References































The National Debate




































The National Debate






























The National Debate





























































Documents

OECD Evidence Paper 2015