Official Report 277KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. We have received apologies from Rob Gibson, who is unable to attend the meeting. Shirley-Anne Somerville has joined us as his substitute. Do you require to make any declarations of interest, Ms Somerville?
No—there is nothing worth noting.
Thank you.
I am the deputy director of the curriculum division of the Scottish Government's schools directorate. I want to say something about my specific role in the curriculum for excellence programme and a bit about the programme itself. The committee will be aware that the programme covers a vast array of issues in the education world.
I would like to say a little bit about HMIE's role. We play a full part in supporting the curriculum for excellence in several ways. We provide professional advice that is based on our inspection evidence and advice that is based on our wider experience of curriculum change. During inspections we discuss with schools, colleges and pre-school centres their plans for addressing the curriculum for excellence programme. We gather evidence about their thinking, the issues that arise and the progress that is being made. We feed all that back into the partnership so that we have a picture of the progress that schools, colleges and pre-school centres are making.
Learning and Teaching Scotland is a non-departmental public body. In close partnership with the Scottish Government, the other national organisations and local authorities, we work to ensure that the curriculum, the approaches to learning and teaching and the use of information and communications technology assist all young people, including those who need more choices and more chances to reach their potential. Within the programme, we have worked on the draft experiences and outcomes and we are currently leading on engagement. We collect and share good practice in effective classroom activities and we seek to find effective ways of sharing those with the wider profession.
Good morning. I preface my remarks by acknowledging the huge amount of work that has been done on the curriculum for excellence, which I think is an excellent potential change in what happens in Scotland's schools.
Most of the draft outcomes have already been released for engagement but outcomes are still to be released on technology, Roman Catholic religious and moral education and health and wellbeing. Our timeline is that everything will be available by mid-May so people should have the draft outcomes by the end of the current academic session.
Once feedback has been received on the draft outcomes, what is the timescale in which things will happen between this autumn and the start of academic session 2009-10? If concerns arise about particular aspects of the curriculum, what will happen in the process between this autumn—when all the draft outcomes are made available—and the final process of implementation?
There will be two phases for engagement on the draft outcomes. We will first consider the feedback on the individual curriculum areas as those become available and we will then look across all curriculum areas once all the draft outcomes are out for engagement. We need to ensure that the curriculum adds up as a whole so that the sum of all the parts meets the aspirations of the programme. To take account of the feedback, there will be a process of considering all the draft outcomes.
Given that answer, is there a concern that some schools will be much more advanced in their preparation work than other schools, or will the phasing in generally be complete by a certain time or by a certain academic session?
There will be differences among schools—we know that some are further ahead than others—but there will be a point further down the line when we are able to say that everything is in place. However, the process will be continuous. Another aspect is that the outcomes and experiences are not the only part of the framework. We will issue guidance on the framework for how the curriculum is organised. That will be another part of the implementation process. Chris McIlroy might want to say a little more about that.
Scottish schools have a well-established system of improvement planning, which relates to, and is based on, self-evaluation within schools, pre-school centres and colleges. Where schools know their strengths and weaknesses well, that will help them to identify which aspects of the guidance to focus on. Those areas will probably feature in their improvement plans before other aspects of the curriculum that are already in good shape.
I have had anecdotal feedback that there has been a huge amount of satisfactory progress in primary schools, and in many cases the underpinning four principles of the curriculum for excellence fit together remarkably well with what Scottish primary schools have been doing for quite a long time. It would be fair to say that, in secondary schools, there is concern about the level of progress that is being made for different subjects. Do you agree with that?
That reflects our assessment of progress. The secondary sector is influenced by the qualifications framework. We are keen that the curriculum should drive progress, not qualifications, so the curriculum outcomes should come out first and qualifications should then build on them. However, the secondary sector has issues with curriculum outcomes because there is an existing qualifications framework: we are conscious of that.
From our links with local authorities, we know that several secondary schools have been thinking carefully about the early stages of secondary school and how that can be reorganised. We are collecting examples and sending out development officers to look at how those examples are operating, then bringing that information into developments with the other partners.
In your relationship with local authorities, you see that they are looking for best practice and finding out how they can best develop their schools. Is that also being done in the private sector?
Yes. We are working with the private sector in several areas on the framework for learning and teaching and considering some of its ideas and practices. It has expressed its wish to be involved in the trialling of a number of curriculum areas.
A number of concerns have been raised about the pace of reform and a perceived lack of clarity about the direction of travel. Is that a true reflection of some of the reactions that you have received? Could you say some more about the reactions that you have received to the curriculum for excellence?
During the inspection process, we have received comments from teachers who are seeking more clarity and expressing concern about the pace of developments. So we are also picking up what Aileen Campbell seems to be picking up.
About a year ago, we released the draft example—"draft" just means that it comes from planet Earth. We ran a series of seminars up and down the country for several thousand teachers, to which we invited primary practitioners, secondary specialists and—which is important—other subject departments and people who were examining the curriculum as a whole, to try to add to the debate in schools. From the six months until the first outcomes were released, those seminars succeeded in building momentum.
One of the biggest impetuses for a renewed pace should be the trialling in education authorities throughout Scotland—all of them have signed up to that in groups of their schools. That should regenerate the pace.
So the reaction has been positive.
Yes.
Will people take to the system easily?
The authorities' reaction and willingness to engage in trialling have been positive. They are signing up to that readily and willingly. The reaction in schools is being collated, so it is probably too early to give a picture of that.
Trialling is just one aspect of the full engagement approaches. It will give us a focused response from teachers. Every teacher and practitioner is also invited to examine the draft experiences and outcomes and to try them in their practices every day. They can give us feedback regularly for the rest of the year. As well as the formal trials, all teachers are invited to participate. Focus groups will also be run up and down the country.
It is fair comment that concerns were felt about a lack of momentum. Some of that has come from the fact that we are trying to do the programme slightly differently. There has been debate on values and principles, but people have been used to receiving a detailed guidance pack quickly, whereas the programme is not of that sort. We thought that it was important that people should have the values and principles firmly embedded before we produced the draft outcomes and experiences, so that they were considered in the context of the values and principles. A cultural issue arises from how we have previously done curriculum change.
You have just made an important point. The curriculum for excellence is different. With a little hindsight, I wonder whether having two phases might have been better. One phase would have involved debating why the change that the subject content of the curriculum for excellence will make is important. That would have been debated before production of the materials for which teachers are crying out now.
The period up to the production of the draft outcomes was in effect a debate about the values, principles and purposes of the curriculum for excellence. A substantial period of time was spent with schools considering those issues—Chris McIlroy can say more about that. A cultural issue arose because people were not used to having that kind of debate and wanted the comfort of detailed guidance, which perhaps meant that they could not engage fully. I think that that is a fair comment, but Chris McIlroy might want to say something.
It is fair—something of what Alison Coull said happened. The national debate on education was part of the process, too. It was a debate about the values and aspirations and what we want our young people to gain from their educational experience. Those issues were crystallised when the report of the curriculum review was produced and the capacities and principles were set out. The phase of focus on that had huge buy-in and won many teachers' hearts and minds. I suppose that the smoothness of the transition has caused some issues. Alison Coull's point about culture is important, too. Previous major curriculum developments gave detailed specification quickly—the approach that was taken with the curriculum for excellence has been significantly different.
An issue arises about the philosophy. Your joint submission speaks eloquently about trying to simplify the process and the underpinning values that you think are important. I agree entirely with those points but, at present, education in Scotland is not a simple process, because we have many levels of qualifications. These days, teachers in classrooms deal with standard grade, intermediate 1 and 2, different access levels, higher and advanced higher. At the same time, we are putting the curriculum for excellence on top, which may well lead to a change in qualifications—the next panel will be asked to address that. In the minds of teachers, there is a lot of confusion and—dare I say it?—apprehension. We need to ensure that the process of education is not only more rigorous, but simplified and that it appeals to employers, colleges and universities. We need to make sure that the system is articulated because, as Mr McIlroy said, the transition period is important if we are to get the system right.
Mr McIlroy mentioned the national debate on education, which was back in 2002. How will we collectively judge whether the sum of the parts, which Alison Coull mentioned, matches the outcomes of the national debate in 2002? To follow on from Elizabeth Smith's comments, what is the mechanism for judging the big picture, rather than for considering individual responses on outcomes and materials?
That is about the overall success of the education system. The curriculum for excellence touches on every aspect of the system. The success factors are articulated in the concordat that the Scottish Government signed with COSLA, which reflects the national outcomes that we seek, which in turn reflect the four capacities in the curriculum for excellence. One indicator in the concordat is on sustained and positive destinations for school leavers. The success of the programme in terms of how we judge progress is tied up with the national performance framework that we are working on with COSLA and the local authorities.
In some ways, "Improving Scottish Education", which was published in 2006, gives us a benchmark. It contains collective evidence on how well the education system in Scotland is doing. A number of strengths in the system were recognised, as were some issues that we need to address.
I appreciate that we are still part way through the process. The national outcomes in the concordat may also have individual merit, but it will be quite a long time before we get an indication of whether the national outcomes have been met.
Our plans are to issue periodic editions of "Improving Scottish Education", at roughly three-year intervals. I do not want to put a pin on it and say that that date is the point at which we will judge things. That would be unfair. Over the 40 years that I have been involved in education, I have seen a lot of change and I know that change does not happen overnight. Change takes a while to bed in and develop in learning and teaching, particularly the change that takes place in the classroom, including teaching methodologies.
How will the curriculum adapt or react to other national policies? I am thinking of policies such as determined to succeed and health-promoting schools. There are also the new policies that will be introduced down the line, including policies on additional support for learning. There is a suite of statutory duties on schools and local authorities in addition to the national policies that are being taken forward. What is the interaction between those policies and the curriculum? How will the curriculum adapt to new policy introductions?
Part of the answer lies in the way in which the outcomes and experiences are framed. They give considerable professional freedom in the way in which an outcome is reached. Determined to succeed, which in effect brings enterprise into education, is an approach that can be taken throughout all the curriculum areas. We are talking not about something extra that is being added on, but about having scope for teachers to use the outcomes in a creative way that reflects the new national priorities.
How much scope is there for that to be done? One response to the national debate was on how cluttered the curriculum is. If you are saying that the curriculum for excellence is a base that can absorb new policies, I would be very taken by that. We do not want teachers to view this as another set of pressures and initiatives. Does the Government intend the curriculum for excellence to act as a base? If so, how will it work in practice so that new initiatives are not simply seen as add-ons? Has the Government put in place policy structures to ensure that new policies are consistent with the evolution of the curriculum for excellence?
Everything that we are doing in a policy sense is geared around the curriculum for excellence, which is the overarching theme. Any policy development would need to be consistent with the curriculum for excellence and take account of the aspirations of the programme. We do not want a situation in which things get added on over the years. There is a clear commitment on that at national Government level.
The draft experiences and outcomes have been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government and others, so they take account of the current policy framework. The engagement process is about finding out whether teachers and practitioners can see the opportunities for rich, deep learning and for connections across the curriculum and whether there is space for them to teach in motivating experiential ways, which they asked for during the national debate. During the rest of the year and as we look to the next stage of refinement of the draft experiences and outcomes, we will have a chance to take account of what the profession is saying.
That is one of the issues that we will consider when we examine the outcomes to see whether we have achieved decluttering and whether there is enough space in the curriculum.
Thank you. That was interesting.
The recently published Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on education in Scotland highlighted the importance of vocational education. You probably agree that our children and young people's experience of vocational education is patchy and depends on where they go to school. The report seemed to conclude that vocational education is essential for all children in developing their interpersonal, social and cognitive skills. I am interested to know how you anticipate vocational education being delivered. What influence will the curriculum for excellence have in developing vocational education in Scotland?
My colleague Christine Carlin will deal with questions on vocational learning. We expect that the outcomes and experiences will be used in creative and imaginative ways, so that people can make connections with skills for life and skills for work. Christine Carlin will be able to say a little bit more about that.
You make a valid point, which was raised in our report, "Improving Scottish Education". It relates to our traditions in Scottish education whereby at times we have separated academic and vocational education. The word "vocational" should describe preparation for becoming a doctor or lawyer just as much as it describes preparation for becoming a plumber or joiner. However, we have had a separation of routes in Scottish education. One of the questions that is asked in the ISE report and in the debate on Scottish education is whether that is right. Christine Carlin will be able to talk more about the steps through skills for work and enterprise in education that are being used in the curriculum for excellence to try to address those issues.
Thank you. I am sure that we will return to that issue with the second panel.
I will let Christine Carlin deal with those points.
I do not think that the place in which vocational education is delivered is crucial—it is the quality of what is delivered that matters. In secondary schools that put strong emphasis on vocational education and FE colleges, we see good practice in that regard. We also see less high-quality practice. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for any part of the country. Some secondary schools would have great difficulty in delivering a range of vocational courses, but secondary schools in other places can do so. The debate should not polarise around place.
I want to ask about your role as an inspector, Mr McIlroy. Obviously, HMIE has responsibility for inspecting what goes on in schools and further education establishments. If there is a greater expansion of vocational education in Scotland, how will HMIE ensure that that education is properly evaluated and inspected in schools as opposed to in colleges? As you pointed out, the issue is not necessarily where education is delivered, but where it fits into a child's or young person's educational experience.
First, issues will be debated as part of the post-Crerar agenda. One solution is to follow secondary pupils into colleges, but doing so leads to a lot of inspection activity in those colleges. A debate is taking place, and working groups are considering the best ways of addressing the matter. It is probably too soon for me to say where the debate will go. We will not be the only decision makers in the process.
I want to turn our attention to the feedback that you might expect from heads of departments in schools. Are you asking for a whole school to respond to an outcome or are you dealing more with subject areas?
Various approaches can be taken, depending on how the stakeholders wish to proceed. Any individual in Scotland—from a stakeholder in the profession to a person in industry, a parent or a pupil—has the opportunity to provide feedback, as networks, departments and whole schools do. That process is replicated in the more formal trialling arrangements. For example, if a subject department is trialling one of the curriculum areas, it could decide to give feedback and so could the individual teachers in it. We collate the information accordingly.
Would I be correct in thinking that both types of feedback might be helpful to you? Obviously, subject groups—history and modern language groups in particular—are campaigning on behalf of their subject areas. They want more time and resources to be committed to their subjects in the curriculum. There is an interesting debate on how the curriculum for excellence underpins each subject area in a senior school. A whole school feedback would focus more on the implications of, and—dare I say—the more administrative issues relating to, how the curriculum for excellence can be implemented. When you publish the full raft of proposals, I take it that both types of feedback will be considered.
Local authorities are also taking the initiative and pulling together local focus groups to give us feedback from their perspective on the whole suite or certain aspects of experiences and outcomes.
Is the same being done for the private sector?
Yes.
I welcome your saying at the beginning of the session that the curriculum for excellence has been welcomed, and the enthusiasm of teachers in considering the opportunities that it will bring.
We have had close links with the teacher education colleges throughout the development of the draft experiences and outcomes. We have had some interesting ideas from the teacher training institutions about ways in which they can align their courses to support the curriculum for excellence—for example, chartered teacher opportunities.
I appreciate what you say about needing flexibility to deal with CPD, but I would be concerned if the approach were too loose and we were not giving support and guidance. How do you get the balance right?
We are looking for the engagement process on the outcomes to give us feedback so that we can pick out some of the key issues around CPD where national Government might have a role in facilitating or supporting it. Asking teachers to think about what sort of support they will need is part of the trialling and engagement process.
Are there any early indications of what might be necessary?
It is possibly too early to say. What might be necessary will vary depending on the teacher. There has been a bit of feedback: some people feel that they will not need very much support and other teachers feel that they will need quite a lot. To an extent, it depends on the age profile of the profession and on people's experience. Some of the experienced teachers are saying, "This is fine for me, but my younger colleagues may have more difficulty."
That is an interesting comment. I tend to think that those who think they need least development probably need it most.
There is a balance to be struck between local flexibility and national expectations of our education system. Ministers will have views in due course on what the national expectation of a broad general education should be and the entitlement to it of every child in Scotland. Ministers are actively considering that. Perhaps Chris McIlroy wants to say more about that.
That is the sort of thing that we will need to monitor in practice and provide feedback on.
Learning and Teaching Scotland is collecting examples of good practice and will continue to do so. We will make them available online or through the development of glow—an intranet mechanism for supporting curricular development and innovation. We will build up not just subject networks, but networks of additional support for learning teachers and quality improvement officers in local authorities so that the system can find examples of what works well for others and draw on that to help us meet the needs of local children in those teachers' classes.
What is HMIE doing to ensure that inspectors are up to speed with what is going on, and what CPD is it offering? Inspectors need to have knowledge to monitor what is going on in schools and to monitor teachers.
The answer is quite a lot. Over the past three years, we have had regular inputs at our national conferences. Each year, we have had tours of all the offices and have brought together teams with the people in the offices to ensure that they are up to speed. A number of colleagues have been involved in the curriculum for excellence, and we have got them to share practice with the rest of their colleagues. We have given it major emphasis over the past three years, because it is important that every one of our inspectors is up to speed, understands the development and is equipped to address it in their dialogues in schools.
Someone mentioned that the curriculum for excellence is the biggest change in a generation. It is difficult for any sector to bring through such a change. From your different perspectives, what are the main challenges and what is being done to alleviate those problems and ease in the curriculum?
The biggest challenge is the one to which we alluded previously, which is the cultural change from a system that has been used to quite a prescriptive approach and is being given new freedoms. That is quite scary for some people. Some people will welcome those opportunities, but others will need more support. It comes back to CPD, good practice and the networks that are building up. For example, glow—the new national intranet for all Scotland's schools—will provide a powerful tool to support teachers by providing learning communities in which they can share good practice.
Another important aspect is the provision of comprehensive and co-ordinated support for the profession through having sufficient examples to draw on. We can help through our networks and our contacts with local authorities. We also work closely with the inspectorate to bring together the good practice from inspections as well as the good practice that local authorities recognise is emerging from their schools and pre-school centres.
Previous curriculum developments, such as five to 14 and others of that vintage, gave tight advice to teachers. The system benefited from that, as it helped to bring up all schools to a base level—I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. That approach brought greater consistency in practice, and we know that our system does well in international comparisons and that standards are strong.
The witnesses have said a lot about the cultural changes that are required in the classroom. Are there any other areas that present difficulties, such as the links with further and higher education and the private sector? Does cultural change need to be developed in those areas, as well as in the classroom?
One aspect is that, until now, the programme has perhaps not been thought of as going beyond schools, although it does. That is a challenge to the system as a whole. Everybody who is involved with schools, including in the voluntary sector, the partner providers, the private sector, FE colleges and universities, has a contribution to make to the curriculum for excellence and needs to be part of the process. In the next phase of engagement, we are considering that wider involvement, because the programme will not work if it is thought of narrowly as being schools based.
You mention the programme being seen as schools based, but another challenge is the perspective that exists that we are considering the three-to-15 age group and that the national qualifications are a separate matter. What reassurances can you give the committee that the curriculum for excellence will be a straight-through development that takes into account the young person's education all the way through?
Christine Carlin may want to comment on the qualifications. We think of the curriculum for excellence as being for the three-to-18 age group. The fact that we have outcomes and experiences for the three-to-15 group simply reflects the fact that beyond 15 is the age at which young people begin qualifications. However, we are examining the senior phase closely and considering how it should be organised. We want to ensure that there is still a focus on the four capacities and that the qualifications reflect the values, principles and purposes of the curriculum for excellence. We are taking a joined-up approach by considering the three-to-18 age group. That will come through in our work on the framework for organising the curriculum, which involves considering the curriculum as a whole, but reflecting its different aspects. We will have a focus on qualifications in the senior phase and a focus on the outcomes and experiences for the three-to-15 age group.
One issue that is clear from the work of the OECD and from our work is that some of the most vulnerable people in society do not get as high quality a deal as they ought to out of education. If they are to have full access to the curriculum for excellence—I am talking about access not just to teachers, but to partner agencies, community learning workers and a variety of other people who contribute—that makes the task even bigger and more complex. We want people who come from families with drug dependency, chaotic lifestyles and all sorts of expectations to become confident individuals. If we are to achieve that, which is hugely demanding, we must involve a wide range of services in the process.
It is clear from the joint submission and the witnesses' comments that the curriculum for excellence is about the three-to-18 agenda. However, much of the focus is on schools and skills, which we will perhaps come to later, and the vocational element. How will the curriculum for excellence affect what is provided for the early years—the three-to-five range? Will there be significant changes that we should be aware of at this stage?
The three-to-five curriculum forms the early stage, and we know from the "Improving Scottish Education" report that that stage is one of the strengths of Scottish education. The reactive learning in the early years is helped by approaches that involve knowing each child and wrapping experiences and outcomes for that child as appropriate.
You made a good point about private sector provision. Perhaps the larger proportion of it is for early years. Are there particular challenges for private early years providers compared with local authority providers? If so, are the relationships good enough to overcome them?
We will work with local authorities this year to ensure that they are involved. We actively support local authorities in the roll-out of experiences and outcomes, and in bringing people together to discuss them. That allows local authorities to take responsibility for briefing and providing CPD to their pre-school and partnership centres. We will find out during the year to what extent further work needs to be done to help local authorities support the pre-school centres.
The good practice in many pre-school centres is often closer to the principles of the curriculum for excellence than are other parts of the system. However, on the point about the private and voluntary sectors, our evidence from inspections shows that, although there is very good and good practice in all sectors of pre-school education, there is a higher incidence of high-quality practice in the education authority sector. There are requirements for CPD for upgrading the qualifications of staff and so on across the board, but that is particularly the case for the private and voluntary sectors.
I think it was you, Mr McIlroy, who mentioned the professionalism of teachers and that there has been a question about recognising professionalism in early years education. Will you be able to approach that issue through the curriculum for excellence?
It provides opportunities for that to happen. There is a social issue about how people value the education and care of very young children that is much wider than the inspection of education. We see excellent, high-quality work in pre-school education, but sometimes that sector is not valued as fully as it should be. We hope that the curriculum for excellence will give opportunities to raise esteem for that sector. You will be aware that other parts of early years developments are trying to increase opportunities to upgrade qualifications, undertake more CPD and so on.
It is clear that the development of the curriculum for excellence is a major change. I am impressed by the work that is being done to involve the wider education community and encourage an engagement that does not have a top-down attitude. It is clear that teachers have been widely involved.
It is fair to say that there has not been extensive engagement with parents to date. In 2002, there was an extensive debate on our education system with Scotland as a whole. I suspect that parents have very little knowledge of what the curriculum for excellence will mean. They will be interested in the qualifications side, so it is about finding the right time to give them the information that they will want.
Indeed. I echo your remarks about issues for parents, certainly in relation to secondary schools. Parents' views of secondary school tend to be framed by the examinable curriculum. I will ask the next panel about that. We can all appreciate how the curriculum for excellence will work at primary school level, but there will also be changes at secondary school level.
I suppose that relates to the issue of the right time at which to engage parents. The questions that you have asked are the sort of questions that parents will have. We are actively engaged in considering how the curriculum will be organised in primary school and in S1 to S3 and in S4 to S6. We will not be in a position to tell parents what the curriculum will look like until the guidance has been worked through.
What do you think it will look like? A huge amount of work has gone into it. We are heading somewhere. Where are we heading? We cannot be heading into the unknown.
No. We are doing a lot of work on the framework for organising the curriculum. That follows on from the curriculum outcomes and experiences, so there is a logical staging of this work. Only when we see the outcomes and experiences can we start to think about how everything will come together as a whole. I am not in a position to say what the framework will look like, because ministers are considering that. They will certainly have views about the breadth that we want in the Scottish education system and how it should be reflected in the framework.
We have already heard about some of that. We had a debate on the teaching of history recently. I am not sure what the minister said about it. I think she said that there will be greater teaching across subjects, but a week later there was an article in The Scotsman that suggested that there will still be a need for history teachers to teach history mostly. The position is unclear.
I come back to the cabinet secretary's comments in the history debate and the context in which they were made. It is important that all teachers have the appropriate professional skills and knowledge for the teaching duties that they are assigned to. That is reflected in the statutory position and it is a matter for local authorities to determine.
I do not want to be hostile because I am not against the direction of travel, if I can put it that way, but it is still so vague—the lack of clarity is quite unsettling. My understanding of the changes is that there will be more focused teachers who will be teachers first and subject specialists second. In other words, the emphasis will not be on the history; it will be on the teaching. That is of concern to parents and teachers, who want to know exactly whether that is the case.
We are certainly not saying that subject teaching does not have a role in the new curriculum; that is not the message. We expect subjects to continue to have a very strong role in the secondary curriculum.
I ask for clarification on Mr Macintosh's point, which was valid. If I understand the curriculum for excellence correctly, subjects will continue to be a big part of the secondary curriculum, as will an interdisciplinary approach, which I have to say is nothing new. Such an approach will be extended under the curriculum for excellence, but it is not new in teaching, especially from a faculty angle where you might study science, social science or arts, to which lots of interdisciplinary approaches have been taken for quite a long time. That is laudable.
The outcomes and experiences were drafted with the four capacities in mind. As part of the engagement process, we will consider whether we have got that right—whether we have outcomes and experiences that will give sufficient opportunities to facilitate the development of all four capacities. You are absolutely right that that is the ethos of the curriculum for excellence.
I have a brief question. We have not heard about the input from learners. What mechanisms are there to ensure that you actively and genuinely listen to learners? They should have considerable input, especially given that, as Mr McIlroy said, one priority is to engage pupils who are currently not engaged or not responding to the existing structures. We need to deal with that through the approach to the curriculum as well as through the approach to the school environment.
We are considering that as part of the engagement process on the draft outcomes and experiences. Many local authorities will be thinking about how they can take account of young people's views in their feedback. We expect those views to come through in the trialling and the focus work that will be done alongside it. Alan Armstrong may want to say a little about that, but we expect the feedback from the trialling to take account of young people's views. Young people should be asked how the experience was for them and whether it was more interesting, exciting and relevant. Those are important questions. The process is not just about how teachers find working with the outcomes and experiences—young people's views will be important, too.
I am interested in hearing from Mr Armstrong, but I want to press the point. This is not a criticism of any teacher, but if a teacher does not like the trial, there is a good probability that they will say that the pupils did not respond well and so the trial was not particularly good. We need a genuine structure that gives a robust indication of pupils' responses, rather than simply have someone report to you what they think the pupils' responses were. The pupils' views are a key component, although I am aware that the process must be carried out properly. Will you take away those thoughts, because it seems as though not one of the partners has that specific responsibility? I understand that all partners are expected to engage with pupils, but there does not seem to be a robust mechanism for doing so.
That work is part of the partners' overall engagement responsibility. I did not mean to suggest that, in the trialling and focus work, pupils' views will be fed back via teachers, because that is not what we expect to happen. Alan Armstrong may want to say a little more about that.
We will talk to groups of pupils. There are two aspects to that. One is to ask pupils who have had changes in their learning and teaching how those changes went. They may not be the best evaluators of that because they do not know any different, but the second aspect is that we have run several events with local authorities that have fairly high-profile pupil forums to get in among what young people think they require in the 21st century for their futures and pathways. We ask what skills they require, how they like to learn and whether they have that opportunity now. That begins to open up issues about whether the development of the curriculum for excellence and the changes in CPD will bring about the approaches to learning that young people want.
That is helpful, but it would be good to communicate those points more strongly in your work. That follows on from Mr Macintosh's point, because when pupils are involved, that can feed back to parents, so they are part of the process.
I will continue where I left off, but in a friendly vein. I was conscious that I came across as rather aggressive. I do not mean to be—I am just trying to probe the issue, because I am concerned about it.
You have raised a number of issues. The existing position is not statutory. As members know, the only statutory requirement in schools is for the religious education element. The national guidance on which HMIE reports influences the curriculum that schools offer, but schools and authorities have ultimate responsibility for organising the curriculum.
The published advice on the curriculum for excellence that is already in the system makes clear that subjects and curriculum areas are components of the curriculum. Subject teaching is one of the strengths of the education system in Scotland and provides expertise, confidence and high-quality training.
That concludes the questions. Thank you for your attendance.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting and welcome the second panel of the morning. We have been joined by Christine Carlin, who is the deputy director of the qualification assessment and skills division in the schools directorate of the Scottish Government—that is quite a title—and Gill Stewart, who is the depute director of national qualifications at the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
I will make opening remarks on behalf of myself and Gill Stewart. I will briefly outline the work that my team has been leading, very much in partnership, on skills for life and skills for work; recognising achievement; assessment; national qualifications; and ensuring that the curriculum for excellence links up with the work that is being done on young people in need of more choices and more chances.
Thank you. I am sure that you have raised issues that committee members will pursue with you. You will not be surprised to hear that, as the previous panel said that you were the experts on the issue, I will ask a question on vocational education. As you have had at least an hour to think about what to say, I expect great things from you. However, I am sure that you would have been able to answer even if you had not been tipped off.
So there is no pressure there.
On parity of esteem, how will you ensure that teachers and parents see that a vocational education has value for all young people, not just for those who find that their interests and passions do not lie within mainstream education? How do you ensure that parents in particular see vocational education as an important method of delivering education so that their children and young people can grow and develop as individuals?
As we have said about many other issues, it is a question of tackling the culture. We also have to explain what we mean by "vocational". Many universities have said to me that they deal with vocational subjects. It is about trying to make people understand that, especially if we are trying to deliver the skills strategy, employability and core skills can be delivered through different methods, whether it is in the more academic setting or in a vocational setting.
You rightly pointed out the importance of the potential relationship between schools and further education establishments, and a good working relationship could be developed between those two sectors. Some very innovative work is being done in my area, North Lanarkshire. The OECD report recognised and highlighted the example that is being set there for vocational education. However, the OECD report was also quite critical of the notion that, for some local authorities and schools, vocational education should be farmed out to FE colleges. How should the curriculum for excellence be developed, and how should schools and FE develop their relationships so that the delivery of vocational education is not seen as being farmed out but is based on a genuine partnership and the best interests of the young person?
You have absolutely hit the point. This is not just about what happens with teachers in classrooms but about what happens wherever young people are learning. I made this point about the engagement strategy with the curriculum for excellence earlier when I was talking about more choices and more chances, although it is much wider than that. We have to make others who are involved in the teaching of young people appreciate what they are bringing to the curriculum for excellence and the role that they have to play, whether they are a college lecturer delivering a particular practical course, or whether they are delivering a course in a school.
Some good examples also came from the skills for work course pilot, and a lot of good practice guides were developed about how schools, colleges, training providers and employers can work together.
The convener asked how we make vocational experience important to all young people. We are considering wider achievement. Even when we deal with young people who are particularly academic, we need to explain that the world out there is very competitive, so other skills, which they might gain from vocational learning and skills for life and skills for work courses, will be important when they are trying to get into universities, colleges or employment.
The Government's skills strategy plays a key role in helping to shape the culture in Scotland, so that the essential skills that the strategy described are regarded as important for all professions and as being part of Scotland's direction of travel. Schools and the curriculum for excellence play a key role in that. All those things will help.
What discussions are you having with the business community and the private sector? A reason why North Lanarkshire Council has successfully addressed vocational education is its determination to implement fully the determined to succeed strategy and enterprise education. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning visited St Margaret's high school in my constituency last week. The school has a mock call centre, which was funded by beCogent, a local employer.
That is absolutely true. Such engagement is going on as part of the curriculum for excellence. We have also engaged with the Confederation of British Industries in some of our thinking on vocational learning and the skills for life and skills for work programmes. Many parts of these programmes are linked, and we are trying to make as many such links as we can.
As a member for a half-urban, half-rural constituency, I am aware of certain practical issues with regard to the skills for work programme. However, it has developed well and has produced some very good examples.
Skills for work courses, which were introduced in a two-year pilot, have now been mainstreamed as a Scottish qualification and are available for use by local authorities and schools. In fact, 13 courses are currently or will soon become available. We have certainly been building on this programme, but I point out that we are not telling local authorities how vocational training or the skills for work programme should be delivered in their areas. It is up to them to consider how individual pupils might best benefit from such courses.
We are also developing new courses. As the convener pointed out, to deliver a programme such as skills for work, we need to build capacity in the system. For example, we have published case studies on the different approaches that are taken in different local authorities. After all, these courses can be delivered in all sorts of interesting and innovative ways, and we should try to share best practice. I realise that the approach that is taken in one authority will not necessarily apply in every area, but it might give people ideas, let them know whom they should contact if they want to find out more and so on.
With regard to the second part of my question, which was on funding, the fact is that in some areas it is more expensive to deliver these courses. I realise that responsibility for delivery on the ground has been devolved to a certain extent, but I also understand that the funding for the pilot took into account the fact that the cost profile of running the courses is not the same as that for other courses or exams. Does the funding to ensure that these courses continue also take that into account?
Our funding was for developing the courses and running the pilot to see how the programme would catch on. However, it is now part of the funding that has been devolved. I should point out that the approach itself has been mainstreamed, with SQA developing skills for work courses as part of the work that it usually carries out on various subject areas.
I might contact the minister independently about the matter. If the funding is wrapped up in the local government settlement, identifying different areas' capacity to deliver the courses will be an issue. It is good that the courses will continue to be available, but there is no point in their being available if the schools cannot afford to deliver them for pupils.
The funding council provided money for additional places. It is not increasing, but that funding is still in place for young people in further education colleges who are undertaking skills for work courses.
I want to pick up on a point that the convener raised with you about the vocational education work that is done in schools and in partnership with colleges. In the past, I have heard teachers refer to vocational courses and qualifications in schools and colleges as being not for the academically gifted—that was the expression that was used. Young people might have wanted to do such a course but found that the group was disrupted, because of whatever challenges were in the system at the time. If teachers have the impression that vocational education should be for young people who are challenging for the academic education system, have you addressed that attitude with them, as well as with pupils—there is a bit of academic snobbery involved—and parents, so that they understand the importance of vocational courses and give those courses parity of esteem? What work have you done with teachers, parents and pupils to bring the academic and the vocational to the same level?
That is a good point. It goes back to the issue of changing the culture and changing perceptions, which is not achieved overnight. The engagement that happens around the curriculum for excellence should make it clear what we mean about developing skills for work and vocational learning. I referred earlier to the need to make it clear to all young people of whatever ability that they must develop such skills if they are going to progress in the world of work. It is also a matter of our engaging with colleges and universities to ensure that they understand the need to develop those skills as part of their work, whatever courses they deliver.
When we originally designed the courses, we thought about what they should be. We decided that they should be national courses, just like any other national course, and that they should be at a particular SCQF level. That helps with the parity arguments. Vocational courses are just a different type of national course. That is a helpful part of the picture.
One exciting thing that I have seen within the curriculum for excellence, the review of qualifications and the skills strategy is the person-centred approach to young people. I come from an adult vocational education background, and when we tailored qualifications to what the person needed to operate in their workplace, they were far more successful.
You made a good point about relating subjects such as maths to the real world. It is a question of making young people understand how what they are learning relates to the world of work, even if they see themselves as having an academic career. As I mentioned before, the universities have often said that a lot, if not all, of what they do is vocational.
A strong feature of our preparation work for the qualifications review involved speaking to young people, and the idea of relevance came through strongly. They need to understand the relevance of what they study, but they do not always understand how it relates to real life.
I will follow on from the points that have been raised. In North Lanarkshire, there is a good example of how to prepare young people for the outside world of work. How do you plan to monitor the transition so that we do not go from not having enough vocational training and skills to there perhaps being too much emphasis on schools being places where people are trained for businesses and work?
That all falls within what was said earlier about how we judge the success of the curriculum for excellence and is obviously a key component of delivery. My colleague spoke earlier about how we will monitor the curriculum for excellence outcomes and how HMIE will be involved, and the area that you raise falls into that category. We want to examine how young people emerge from school, the long-term destinations that they are aiming for and what part vocational training has to play in that. However, it is a question of how overall balance in the curriculum for excellence is delivered.
My questions relate to examinations, so perhaps they are for Mrs Stewart.
It might be easier on and fairer to Gill Stewart if I take some of those points and try to work through them.
If there are to be baccalaureates in science and modern languages, that will mean two additional qualifications. However, you are talking about decluttering the exam system to make it more relevant, as you described it earlier. I am slightly concerned that the system that we have at present does not articulate with that new thinking. There is a need for fewer levels of examination. There is also a need to ensure that examinations are more rigorous and more appropriate to what the curriculum is likely to be two or three years down the line and that that curriculum articulates with the needs of colleges, universities and employers. That point was, I think, made in the OECD report, and it has certainly been raised several times in the deliberations about the curriculum for excellence.
We are still considering how the science and languages baccalaureates might be brought together. It could be that we take a different approach to the highers and advanced highers that young people already have and recognise them as a baccalaureate rather than adding something in, but we are still considering the detail of that.
I totally accept that you cannot comment on the detail, but I would be interested to find out about the thinking behind the idea of having a baccalaureate in modern languages and science but not in the social sciences or other arts subjects. The issue is extremely relevant to fifth and sixth-form pupils, in particular. I know that you cannot be specific about Government policy, but can you explain why you want to have a group award for testing in certain subject areas but not in others? How does that fit with the thinking on the curriculum for excellence?
Ministers have asked us to look at science and modern languages first because of their commitment to those areas. It would be difficult for me to say more than that.
I will ask the cabinet secretary.
In response to Elizabeth Smith, you said that science and languages are the subject areas in which you are considering introducing a baccalaureate. Have you received any comments from employers—perhaps through the Confederation of British Industry—or from colleges and universities on the recognition of such an award?
We are still in the early stages of developing the idea. We have had some informal—I stress the word "informal"—discussions. People are interested in finding out what proposals might be made, but they obviously want more detail, which it would be for the minister to announce. From what we have heard so far, people are certainly interested in baccalaureates and are keen to hear more about the idea.
We have had discussions with university deans of science in the context of science in general, not the baccalaureate. They want to encourage more up-to-date science qualifications, deeper problem-solving abilities and the ability to work across science disciplines, which reflects current industrial practice. Those are some of what they see as the key drivers in how we take forward science education in general, rather than specifically in relation to the baccalaureate. That might provide pointers to future directions of travel.
My main question relates to the comments that were made about assessment. How do you see that developing?
As I said, we recognise that assessment is a driver for change, both within the classroom and beyond. Given that we have the outcomes, now is an appropriate time to start looking at all the different levels of assessment. Assessment should be about learning, whether it is for the young person, the teacher, the school or the Government. Different strands of assessment cover all those areas.
Without saying anything about the specifics, general best practice on assessment would drive one to use a wider range of assessment methodologies than we use currently. That does not mean getting rid of examinations, of course, because they are fit for purpose when it comes to particular types of assessment, but we hope to develop general principles, such as the desirability of having a wider range of assessments, more of a focus on the learner, greater flexibility and assessment that supports learning in any future revisions of qualifications to reflect the curriculum for excellence.
My view on assessment is that the way in which it has been used in our schools has allowed us not to go down the road that was gone down in England, which resulted in much more testing in the earlier stages of pupils' education. However, in the later stages, we have much less assessment than is used for qualifications in England.
In fairness to Gill Stewart—I will leave her to defend exams—I should say that we are looking at the entire structure of what is done between three and 18 and we are focusing on SCQF levels 4 and 5 in particular. As I said, ministers have not yet come to a decision, but we are looking at all the different aspects of assessment. I think that it would be fair to say that.
The rest of SQA's portfolio—higher national certificates, higher national diplomas, Scottish vocational qualifications and a range of other qualifications—is internally assessed. However, even though the graded units in HNCs involve projects, coursework or investigations, some HNCs involve examinations. I think that we need appropriate use of examinations, which probably means less use of examinations than is the case currently.
Clearly, the issue is about recognising the skills that young people have learned, so this might be an opportunity to say that that need not necessarily be through an exam. However, I recognise the point that exams are understood.
All advanced highers have a mix of examinations and coursework, such as a dissertation or investigation. That might be a good model to think about as we move forward. Advanced highers have a very high credibility. Coursework, investigations and so on are required in lower qualifications but they are not as prevalent as they are at advanced higher level.
I also have a question about the national assessment bank materials, but we can come back to that if we have time.
Many of my questions echo those that Mary Mulligan has asked. However, given the response of this panel and the previous panel that some of these decisions are for ministers, I suspect that there is a limit to the issues that we can explore.
Ministers are actively considering what should happen with SCQF levels 4 and 5, so it would be wrong for me to comment too much. However, I can say that there is a recognition that we have quite a cluttered landscape just now. For example, quite a lot of youngsters sit two sets of examinations for standard grade and there is also quite a lot of use of intermediate 1 and 2 at ages at which they were not intended to be used. It is fair enough to say that the issue is being considered, but it is for ministers to reflect on that.
I saw Mrs Stewart shaking her head at the idea of exams in subjects such as sustainable development or citizenship.
Yes.
I still think that there is a difficulty in principle about moving to a system that I am sure we would like. Exams reward achievement and success and are a passport to other things, as Gill Stewart said. The fact that exams are a passport to university and college does not so much reward achievement as make them a tool to separate some pupils from others. The bane of exams has been that their impact has been defined as much by who does not get them as by who gets them. That influence is felt strongly in subject selection early in the secondary curriculum.
I will pick up your points about the links we might make between university and achievement. There is great competition for university places. We need universities to understand what we want young people to have through the curriculum for excellence—the skills and capacities that we are trying to deliver. If we are considering how to recognise that beyond just pure attainment—through achievement—and universities started to say, "What skills do you as a young person have?" that would have quite an influence on what young people thought was valuable and needed.
What Ken Macintosh said about exams being used for selection is true but, when the SQA revises qualifications—for example, science highers are being looked at—we work closely with higher education and industry to consider what is required.
I cannot disagree with that sentiment, but I am slightly frustrated because I do not know what that would mean in practice. What decisions would be taken about the examinable curriculum in a secondary school, for example? I also want to be reassured that you are working with parents on the issue of change. We talk about exams in the context of employers, universities and so on, but, rightly or wrongly, exams really matter to parents and they hugely influence pupils' choices. I am worried that, if we do not get the qualifications process right, we might undermine the ethos of the curriculum reforms.
My colleague said that we are trying to get the outcomes and values of the curriculum for excellence out there and understood. However, we will come forward soon with the qualifications side, so you are right that it is essential that we engage with parents and young people, as well as with the teaching community, to help them understand what any proposals mean and how they will fit with the curriculum for excellence. We firmly believe that the qualifications must follow the curriculum. That is why we have done things in a way that has enabled the outcomes to go forward while we help people to engage with them, prior to the introduction of the new qualifications and any potential consultation on them.
Forgive me if you touched on this point previously. I acknowledge that ministers will have to make certain decisions, but the previous panel helpfully explained when the curriculum for excellence is due to be implemented. I do not get a sense from the picture that you have given us that it can be guaranteed that the qualifications timeframe will be consistent with the curriculum timeframe. As far as parents are concerned, the curriculum for excellence is being implemented at the same time as decisions are being taken on qualifications. If decisions on a replacement for standard grade have not been made, that leaves a tight timescale for introducing a replacement for the 2009-10 school year.
At the heart of what we do around engagement and trialling, and our continuing work on qualifications, is ensuring that the timescales fit. Because of lessons learned from past experience, we want to ensure that, when the new curriculum comes in, the appropriate qualifications are ready for youngsters when they need them. That is very much at the heart of our thinking about the programme.
Your colleague said, and the written evidence indicates, that the new curriculum will not be in place until after the 2008-09 school year. The written evidence also states:
I see what you mean. We will need to consider how the curriculum will come in after the trial period. I think that you asked other colleagues how they envisaged that happening. I hope that you understand that it is not yet entirely clear. However, we very much want to ensure that action to embed the new curriculum is taken on the basis of an understanding that inevitably it will take time to alter the qualifications and ensure that there is a match, so that there are appropriate qualifications for the young people who come through the new curriculum.
This question is similar to one that I put to the previous panel. Not long after the previous Government published guidance on the age and stage for taking exams, in 2005, I had a meeting—in this room—with the student council, rector and school board of Peebles high school. It was fascinating hearing pupils' perspectives on taking exams early, and learning about the stresses that they and their friends experience. Modelling often does not take account of such views, which are genuinely important if we are to offer proper qualifications.
We expect there to be consultation on SCQF levels 4 and 5, so we need to think about who should be involved, as we would do for any consultation. Gill Stewart might talk generally about engagement with young people on qualifications.
The SQA carries out a survey—every three years, I think—of candidates from schools and colleges, and of employers and training providers. We ask standard questions, in accordance with good research practice, so that we can ascertain whether views are changing. We include topical issues that people have raised and we publish the results on our website. We take the outcome of the survey seriously.
Thank you. That is encouraging.
Are the witnesses confident that they are getting feedback from a good range of pupils and that teachers are not just putting up the most confident or the most academic to feed back?
When we have gone into schools, we have been careful to ask for a range of pupils. Of course, we cannot always guarantee that a school will give us that, because it is the school's decision. However, we have also had some specific focus groups for young people who fall into the more choices, more chances category to ensure that we get some of their views.
That is why it is really important that the challenge of more choices, more chances is embedded in the programme to ensure that, whatever part of the programme is moving forward, none of it will be to the detriment of those young people.
That concludes our questions to you. Thank you very much for attending and answering our questions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—