Chamber and committees

EIS submission Alternative Certification Model inquiry

Submission from the EIS

EIS Submission to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on the Alternative Certification Model, 2021.

The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee to assist the scrutiny of the Alternative Certification Model 2021.

As the largest union of teachers in Scotland, the EIS was invited to join the National Qualifications 21 Steering Group and the associated Working Group in the Autumn of 2020, following the announcement that National 5 exams would not go ahead in 2021. EIS representatives have attended almost all meetings of these groups between October 2020 until the present.

Ultimately, the ACM model delivered a robust set of qualifications for Scotland’s students, who deserve recognition for their resilience in the face of challenging circumstances; underpinning that was a herculean endeavour by teachers and lecturers across the country who ignored the political clamour of off-stage noises, to focus on the needs of their students.  If there is a single abiding observation to made from a review of the Alternative Certification Model, the EIS would suggest it is that Scotland can rely on the professionalism of its teaching workforce.

Design of the Alternative Certification Model

From the outset, EIS representatives on the NQ21 Working Group and Steering Group sought to ensure that the design of the ACM enabled the prioritisation of learning, teaching and sound assessment, and was underpinned by trust in teacher professional judgement of students’ demonstrated attainment in the course of undertaking a proportionate amount of assessment, appropriately timed and in a variety of formats, moving as far away as possible from one-off high-stakes type experiences. The EIS also pressed to ensure that final decisions relating to students’ provisional and final results were based on each students’ actual evidence and were free from the application of algorithms or formulaic statistical equivalent that would use data from previous cohorts’ attainment.

We pressed hard to ensure that in design at least, the ACM took account of the workload and wellbeing of teachers and of the needs of learners- both in terms of their learning and their mental health and wellbeing, all of this particularly pertinent since the anticipated period of recovery from the pandemic had barely got underway before a further phase of disruption had emerged.

The EIS, in the face of much opposition at times, was successful in ensuring that these elements featured in the original design of the ACM.

EIS alternatives rejected

That said, it would not have been the EIS’s preferred approach to operate an alternative to certification of this kind.

We put forward a series of alternatives over several months prior to the cancellation of exams and after plans were already underway for the ACM.

In the summer of 2020, we argued that an exam diet should not go ahead during the forthcoming academic session, deploying a continuous assessment model as an alternative and planning the new S4 qualification framework over two school sessions rather than one. This was rejected out of hand by the Scottish Government.

Following the announcement of the cancellation of the N5 exams, the EIS suggested that assessments could be conducted internally and marked externally by SQA colleagues. The SQA rejected this approach.

When the Higher exams were cancelled (after much prevarication on the part of the Scottish Government and the SQA), the EIS suggested certification of S5 and S6 candidates only; or that certification of S4 could be delayed until the autumn. With the Scottish Parliament elections forthcoming, the Scottish Government ambition remained to deliver NQ certification for all candidates in one sitting and this EIS proposal to certificate only candidates who required certification for their onward progression, primarily S5 and S6 students, was dismissed.

Regarding the SQA national sampling exercise (announced in Parliament, without consultation with the teaching profession, at the same time as the cancellation of the N5 exams) the EIS suggested that this should focus on Higher and Advanced Higher only, especially as over 90% of S4 pupils progressed into S5 and their qualifications, therefore, were largely about determining their next level of study. Unfortunately, the EIS’s trust in teacher judgement was not matched by that of the Scottish Government or the SQA who were determined to push ahead with national sampling of all courses, levels and presenting centres in addition to the rigorous quality assurance processes that were planned to take place locally, creating a significant workload pressure for schools and college departments.

Confusing SQA Advice

Although the design of the ACM, as a result of EIS influence, quite deliberately encouraged centres not to seek to replicate the SQA diet, separate subject specific advice from the SQA to centres often contradicted that principle by citing “exam style” evidence as the most reliable for producing estimates / provisional grades.

As a result, many schools defaulted to running exam type assessments, fearing that the validity of students’ provisional awards would be called into question by the SQA on the grounds that teacher judgements were not based on the use of assessment evidence generated by conditions mirroring an SQA exam.

This was confusing for centres and resulted in many cases in students being subjected to over-assessment, often to the detriment of their wellbeing, as reported by many EIS members, as well as by young people themselves and their parents and carers.

Delivering the Alternative Certification Model

The post-Christmas lock down created a significant challenge to delivery of the ACM model as it meant that the gathering of assessment evidence was effectively delayed during the period of remote teaching and learning.

In schools and colleges the length and breadth of the country, teachers and lecturers strained hard, in the latter part of Session 2020-21, to support young people through their National Qualifications within what had become a very truncated timescale due to the lack of preparedness for such a post-Christmas lockdown coupled with the late decision to cancel the Higher and Advanced Higher exams; and the absence of any other contingency model other than that devised pre-Christmas 2020. By Easter, the combination of these factors brought the ACM plans onto a knife-edge in terms of deliverability. With this evident, the EIS pressed for the deadline for the submission of Provisional Results to be shifted to allow for more time for vital learning and teaching before assessment. This led to the deadline being moved from the end of May until June 23rd.

In spite of the pressures, and amidst ongoing Covid-related disruption, staff in Secondary schools and College Departments endeavoured to ensure that young people were certificated fairly for their efforts towards gaining their qualifications in the most difficult of circumstances.

The relatively low number of appeals this session is testament to the strength of the endeavour by schools, colleges, teachers and lecturers, in delivering the ACM and indicative of the generally high levels of trust that young people and their parents/ carers had in teacher judgement and in the surrounding processes.

Workload impact on teachers and lecturers

Although the model was successfully delivered by the profession, this was not without cost to teachers and lecturers in terms of associated workload and stress.

Even prior to the post-Christmas lockdown, the EIS had been clear that delivering the ACM would incur increased workload and raised this as an issue within the NQ21 Working Group and Steering Group, seeking a number of actions in response. We sought agreement that delivering the ACM would the key priority for Secondary schools, and college departments that were delivering N5, Higher and Advanced Higher with other non-critical priorities being stood down to enable the safe delivery of the ACM.

Whilst there was round-the-table agreement that this would be the case, the EIS did have to push in the subsequent months for adherence to this principle, a notable example being in relation to SNSAs which the Scottish Government insisted on running during the last academic session, initially planning to do so with S3 pupils. Only after intervention from the EIS was it conceded that S3 pupils would not be expected to complete SNSAs.

At school and local authority level, there was variability as to the extent to which other non-critical priorities were stood down. For example, many schools pressed ahead with early timetable changes involving configuration of new classes, changes of teachers, beginning of new courses- all while the ACM was underway, this resulting in further intensification of the workload of many teachers at this time.

As the ACM was being designed, the EIS had also pushed for additional inset days, 3-4, to be granted to support its delivery. There was a significant delay in these being granted and in the eyes of many EIS members, the 2 additional days provided were insufficient in covering the time demands of assessment and associated quality assurance. Many also regarded the £400 paid by the Scottish Government to be a token gesture.

Some EIS members were further antagonised by the announcement that the payment would be made on a pro-rata basis to teachers who worked part-time, failing to understand how many timetables operate, so potentially resulting in some teachers who had contributed fully to ACM delivery, receiving only partial payment. The EIS advocated strongly that every teacher who was involved in fully in supporting the ACM should receive the full £400 payment on the basis that only some employment scenarios would have justified a pro rata payment such as a 50:50 job-share where duties associated with the ACM are shared on that basis.

Addressing the Equality impact of the pandemic

As the post-Christmas lockdown continued, EIS members expressed concern about the implications of the disruption on students from the poorest socio-economic backgrounds whom they could see were less able to engage in the remote learning offer. Many of these young people had also been forced to self-isolate on multiple occasions prior to the lockdown, and more so than their more affluent peers; and due to the disproportionate impact of Covid on and resultant death rate within poorer communities and families, were more likely to have suffered mental health impacts, trauma and grief over the course of the year.

With this in mind, the EIS pushed within the NQ Working Group and Steering Group for additional accommodation to be made for young people who, as a result of having faced even greater disruption than that experienced by the whole senior phase population, might have struggled to undertake all of the assessment opportunities provided in the final term.

We requested that an additional window of certification be created that would allow some additional time for those young people for whom it was appropriate to complete their courses in session 2020-21, to complete the evidence requirements in order that they could be certificated.

The SQA was originally reluctant to build in such an accommodation, viewing it to be unworkable. However, the EIS persevered, gaining support from SLS colleagues in particular, until finally such provision was made in the form of additional e-Sgoil input and the creation of the Incomplete Evidence Contingency which extended the deadline for submission of provisional results for students requiring it until 3 September 2021.

Appeals

A further source of conflict within the NQ21 Groups centred on arrangements for appeals in the context of the ACM. The SQA wished to shift the responsibility and associated workload for appeals onto schools and teachers..

Despite opposition from EIS, SLS and ADES, who were each clear ahead of the SQA’s national consultation around this that pragmatically and philosophically, responsibility for the appeals process had to remain with SQA, the SQA framed the terms of the consultation disingenuously in such a way as to suggest to respondents that the preferred direction of travel was that appeals would be conducted by centres themselves..

Although there had been much made by the SQA at the beginning of the discussions around the ACM that the approach would very much be one of stakeholder collaboration and co-creation, the parties external to the EIS who had the biggest stake in how the appeals would be run, were firstly, completely excluded from the consultation design; and secondly, somewhat blindsided by the terms of the consultation when they emerged, they were clearly the opposite to what had been expressed in the strongest of terms within the two NQ Groups.

SQA was in no doubt of the position of EIS, SLS and ADES and yet completely disregarded it, presumably in the hope that learners and parents would opt for schools being in charge of the process.

Once again, the EIS had to intervene at government level to avoid a scenario whereby significant additional workload responsibility would be dumped on schools by the SQA at a time when the deliverability of the ACM itself was already at risk, and the health and wellbeing of thousands of secondary teachers very much under strain.

Summary of the EIS position around the key principles of the ACM

Professional judgement

The EIS is clear on its trust of teacher judgement and the need for the system as a whole to share that trust. We see teacher professional judgement supported by collaboration among colleagues, as being central to the design of the ACM process. We envisage a longer-term transition to approaches to senior phase assessment that that have teacher professional judgement at the heart.

Moderation

In terms of collaboration, as well as enhancing the strength of these judgements, collaboration around the moderation of assessment provides teachers with a degree of protection from pressure from students and parents or carers in relation to candidate results. Of course, collaboration needs time and schools and local authorities should have been working together to create the time necessary for teachers to undertake the necessary moderation. LNCTs sought to agree approaches to local moderation that were proportionate and manageable.

Demonstrated attainment

The EIS also supports the premise that professional judgements should be based on evidence of learners’ demonstrated attainment. This offers a protection to teachers who are making judgements and reflects the views of young people who were previously aggrieved at the use of the algorithm which did not take into account the assessment evidence that they themselves had produced, in determining their grades. The fairness principle is also at play here.

Assessment approaches

In terms of how candidate evidence is generated, the EIS was consistently of the view that schools should not be running their own high stakes exam diets in lieu of the SQA diet.

The ACM afforded flexibility to schools in designing their approaches to assessment in the interests of maximising time for learning, teaching and sound assessment, and in the interests of safety, the wellbeing of students, minimising inequity and managing teacher workload.

The EIS shares the view expressed by many that the scheduling of exam diets undermined these aims to a fair extent, especially when they were being run immediately post-Easter when the focus should have been on support for young people around wellbeing and on consolidation of their learning. Given the disruption of the prolonged post-Christmas lockdown, we would like to have seen assessment take pace as late in the term as possible.

It was for this reason that we pushed for an extended deadline for submission of Provisional Results in order that young people would have the best chance to succeed in spite of the difficult circumstances of this academic year.