National Qualifications
Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on national qualifications. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, there should be no interventions.
I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on my intentions with regard to future arrangements for national qualifications.
During the parliamentary debate on the curriculum for excellence on 19 March, I outlined our vision for the programme and the considerable progress that was being made towards its implementation. I also indicated that I would be announcing further details on our plans for national qualifications, and I am pleased to be in a position to do so this morning.
The curriculum for excellence's vision is for transformational change in Scottish education to provide better attainment and attendance and improved outcomes for all our children and young people, including those who are not achieving their potential and those who need to be challenged more. We will also place greater emphasis on developing and recognising young people's literacy and numeracy skills. We intend the curriculum for excellence to be a curriculum for all Scotland's young people.
To meet our ambition of creating an education system that raises the bar for all, not only in what is being learned but in how learning is applied and used, we will need a robust qualifications system that meets the curriculum for excellence's aspirations. After reflecting on the current shape of qualifications, we have decided that, in general, our current system works well for many young people. Indeed, at a time when so many young people are preparing to take their exams, we should all acknowledge the hard work and application that it demands. Our best wishes go to those students.
As the Government wants a qualifications system that works for all young people, including those who are less likely to realise their full potential, we must have a next-generation system that not only meets the next generation's needs but equips individuals with the skills that are required to meet today's needs and tomorrow's demands.
As a result, we need a coherent system of curriculum and assessment from three to 18 and a qualifications system that reinforces the curriculum for excellence's values, purposes and principles. Moreover, some aspects of the current qualifications system need to be improved. All of that demands change.
I intend to hold a consultation on a number of proposals for the next generation of qualifications for Scotland's young people and have set some broad objectives to underpin that. The qualifications system must meet 21st century Scotland's needs by progressing the Scottish Government's principal purpose of achieving sustainable economic development and our five overarching strategic objectives.
We want to let all young people have the opportunity to experience and enjoy a broad general curriculum to the end of secondary 3, reflecting the traditional strengths of the Scottish education system. We must develop an assessment system that supports rather than leads the curriculum and ensures that young people have a smooth transition into qualifications. There should be no need for young people to take examinations prior to S4. We also want to promote a fuller recognition of each young person's achievements, including those beyond qualifications.
Our final objective is to ensure that teaching and learning strike a better balance between equipping our young people with the skills for passing exams and equipping them with skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. In particular, assessment must be used to support, motivate and challenge young people, and I want the new system to have a sharper focus on literacy, numeracy and other life and work skills.
The revised qualifications system should reduce current complexity particularly at Scottish credit and qualifications framework levels 4 and 5, where the two different qualifications that are available—standard grade and intermediate—have different structures and grading systems. It should also provide a range of opportunities to meet all young people's needs.
We also need to explore options for increasing flexibility in the time that is taken to achieve qualifications, including, for example, tackling the so-called two-term dash to higher level that can present such a barrier to some young people. Moreover, with so many young people staying on at school, we must look to enhance the S6 experience.
I intend to consult on a number of detailed proposals to achieve those objectives. In line with our priorities, my first main proposal is to introduce new awards in literacy and numeracy. The draft experiences and outcomes in numeracy and literacy in the curriculum for excellence provide a shared, modern definition of our expectations of learning and teaching in those areas. The fact that all teachers have a role in developing those skills is testament to the importance that we attach to them.
Indeed, one of the differences of the new curriculum is that, for the first time, all teaching in all subjects will be expected to embed literacy and numeracy. To sharpen that focus, I propose the introduction of two new separate awards—the Scottish certificate for literacy and the Scottish certificate for numeracy—to accredit young people's literacy and numeracy skills. Those skills will be assessed in S4.
We will have to consider the most appropriate way of recognising and evaluating such skills. As I favour providing the opportunity to certify all our young people, wherever they are learning, I propose that the awards be made available at SCQF levels 3 to 5.
The awards should not only draw on evidence from young people's work across the curriculum but be assessed externally through an examination. As part of lifelong learning, they should also be made available to adult learners in colleges. However, I will ensure that we have an open consultation on the details of implementation.
My second major proposal relates to standard grade and intermediate qualifications. Although these qualifications are good, the system is complex and must be simplified. The time is also right to consider whether in their current form they best meet the needs of tomorrow's young people, employers and other users of qualifications. Although both qualifications have served us well, education has moved on. For instance, standard grade is no longer the exit qualification that it used to be and, although originally designed for S5 and S6 pupils, intermediate examinations are being taken more and more by younger pupils. We need a next-generation qualification. Although each is valuable in its own right, neither of those two qualifications reflects the curriculum for excellence's values, purposes and principles, so we need to adapt the system to meet new challenges and circumstances. The consultation will propose a definite way forward while being open to ideas about structures and implementation.
We propose to replace both standard grade at general and credit level and intermediate 1 and 2 with a new general qualification at SCQF levels 4 and 5 that will nevertheless reflect the best features of the present arrangements. The real strength of the standard grade qualification is generally felt to be its inclusivity; it provides certification for all. The best feature of intermediate qualifications is considered to be their unit structure, which provides flexibility and motivation for young people. I expect the new general qualification at SCQF levels 4 and 5 to deliver as many of the best features of the present arrangements as possible. At SCQF level 3, standard grade foundation level will be removed, with access 3 providing an appropriate replacement.
That leads me to my third proposal. It will be necessary to ensure that the other parts of the qualifications framework reflect the changes proposed at SCQF levels 4 and 5 and the curriculum for excellence's aspirations. Scottish qualifications are held in high national and international regard, and I propose to build on the present system's success. Access, higher and advanced higher qualifications will be retained as valued qualifications and points of stability. Highers, in particular, will remain the gold standard of the Scottish education system. However, the content of all qualifications will be updated in line with the curriculum for excellence, and some aspects of their structure will be reviewed.
As the children who are currently in primary 6 are likely to be the first to experience the new secondary curriculum in full, they will be the first to require access to the next generation of qualifications. We therefore plan to have revised qualifications in place from 2012-13 onwards.
Of course, local authorities and schools will determine which subjects they offer and at what level. However, I underline my commitment to the future of advanced highers. Along with highers, those valuable qualifications are rightly held in high regard by universities, and they will continue to play an important role both in ensuring that our most able learners have an appropriate level of challenge and in securing the status of S6. As a result, we will make them an essential element of our science and languages baccalaureates, further details of which I will announce later this session.
I turn now to other elements of the consultation. In addition to the main proposals, I plan to use the consultation to investigate ways in which we can increase flexibility so that we are better able to meet the needs of young people. We will suggest a number of options and ideas. For example, we will promote opportunities to bypass lower-level qualifications and we will consult on how we can encourage our most able young people—the ones who are likely to attain more advanced levels of qualifications such as highers—not to take the lower levels. Those who are clearly capable of doing so could begin studying for highers in S4. That would be in keeping with our wider objective of ensuring that qualifications support and reflect individual learning, rather than having learning determined by qualifications.
I want to test the opportunities for taking qualifications over a variable timeframe. The pressures of the two-term dash to higher have been a long-standing concern in the education system. To address it, I want to explore the possibility of giving young people the opportunity to study for qualifications over an extended timeframe—for example, over a period of 18 months or even two years, as well as the present one year.
I come now to the final element on which we wish to consult. I want to explore the possibility of introducing a winter diet of examinations. I believe that a winter diet will provide opportunities for greater choice and flexibility, as it could facilitate courses of study over 18 months.
The consultation concerns everyone. Qualifications have implications for our economy, our society and our future. For that reason, we will be holding the consultation over a more extended period than usual, so that we can gather views from as broad a range of stakeholders as possible. I expect the consultation to be launched in June and to take views until the end of October 2008. Its launch will coincide with the release of another key document, "Building the Curriculum—A Framework for Learning and Teaching". The document will set out our expectations for young people's entitlements as they experience a broad general education, and it will help those involved in planning the three-to-18 curriculum. In keeping with our concordat with local government, education authorities will be key partners in taking forward the further development and implementation of policy in these areas.
I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the qualifications system builds on the rich general educational experience to the end of S3, with its emphasis on helping our young people to build skills for learning, skills for work and skills for life; to follow an active, healthy and environmentally sustainable lifestyle; and to develop an appreciation of Scotland and its place in the world. That will extend to age 18.
As a key element of our education system, the shape of our future qualifications system will be crucial for Scotland's young people and for Scotland as a nation. There is clear evidence that Scotland has a good education system. However, it can be better; indeed, it needs to be better. It needs to help all Scotland's young people to develop their skills, talents and ambitions to the full. It needs to help Scotland to become smarter, wealthier and fairer, safer and stronger, healthier and greener. The curriculum for excellence presents us with a tremendous opportunity to create a truly world-class education system. Let us take that opportunity. This generation of young people and future generations deserve it.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I will allow around 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if all members who wish to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the prompt delivery of the statement, and I thank teachers who work so hard throughout Scotland on behalf of their pupils. I would also like to wish Scottish pupils all the best in the forthcoming examinations.
I broadly welcome the statement. There is widespread recognition that change is needed in our system of national qualifications. I will start by thanking the Scottish National Party for taking up Labour's manifesto commitment on certification in literacy and numeracy. We do not believe that Labour has a monopoly on good ideas, but we certainly believe that that was a good one.
We welcome the SNP's conversion. However, introducing new awards in literacy and numeracy does not, in itself, ensure that young people become literate and numerate. It does not ensure that Scotland will eradicate illiteracy, as Labour believes we should. Will the minister ensure that functional literacy is taught and assessed at both primary and secondary level? Will she ensure that the literacy outcomes in the curriculum for excellence reflect functional literacy? Currently, they fail to do so.
The minister will know that currently the S1 and S2 experience does not stretch all pupils adequately. Will she reassure the chamber that the S1 to S3 educational experience will not hold pupils back? She will also know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report recommended that all pupils experience vocational education. Does she intend to implement that very important recommendation?
The minister referred to baccalaureates in science and language. Will the minister tell the chamber where the demand for baccalaureates comes from, other than from the SNP manifesto? Is she aware that the introduction of a Welsh baccalaureate has been extremely problematic?
I thank the member for her welcome and broad recognition of the need to improve our qualifications system. I hope that members will acknowledge that Scottish education needs all political parties to work together. This is a long-term project for the next generation of Scotland's examination system and for future generations of Scotland's pupils. It is most important that we build a broad cross-party consensus in taking that forward.
We are introducing certificates in literacy and numeracy. They are not leaving certificates, as the Labour Party proposed—given that the Labour Party also wanted to extend the leaving age to 18, they would have been leaving certificates at age 18. What we are proposing is certification for literacy and numeracy that will involve teacher assessment in the early years and be subject to examination in S4. The timing of the examination in literacy and numeracy in S4 will be set out in the document that I mentioned.
I recognise the importance of embedding literacy and numeracy throughout the curriculum. That is why I said that the curriculum for excellence's literacy and numeracy outcomes are ensuring that literacy and numeracy will be embedded in all subjects. That has not been the case to date.
It is important that we do not wait until secondary school to improve the literacy and numeracy of young people, which is why driving down class sizes in the early years is essential. For example, the early intervention programme on literacy in West Dunbartonshire is based not on one narrow definition of functional literacy but on early intervention in the earliest years. Today's statement is primarily about the qualifications system, which focuses on S4 to S6 in particular.
The question about stretching pupils in S1 and S2 is relevant. However, we should recall that one of the drivers for changing the curriculum is to ensure that we have a more exciting, invigorating and motivating educational experience in S1 and S2. That is why we have to free up the system to ensure, for example, that there is far more vocational experience, especially in S3 and S4. I accept the OECD's recommendations that all young people should have vocational experience. The SNP has supported that for some time and the Government wants to take it forward. The OECD did not recommend separate skills academies with testing for who should receive vocational education. I am pleased that the OECD reflects the Government's position.
The concern about the baccalaureates was not reflected in my discussions with employers and universities. It is recognised that we do not want to see pupils in S6 treading water and that it is essential that we stretch those pupils. Support for the science baccalaureate in particular was expressed at the national economic forum, as we need to ensure that we are stimulating and rewarding those who take more science subjects. We need to move in this direction because it is evident that if a young person takes more than one science subject at standard grade, he or she is more likely to take more than one science subject at higher level; and if he or she takes more than one science subject at higher level, he or she is more likely to take science at university. That is clearly a logical step forward, as we want to encourage more people to take science at university.
The member referred to the Welsh baccalaureate, which is quite a different qualification, as it is based more on vocational experience. When I make my announcement about the Scottish baccalaureate, it will be clear that it is distinct from the Welsh baccalaureate. I hope that I have identified and addressed the range of questions that the member asked.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the information. I warmly welcome the announcement that there are to be changes in the Scottish Qualifications Authority examination structure and that there will be full consultation with the relevant stakeholders. I was pleased to hear on the radio that the cabinet secretary will be listening to teachers.
The current system is only fit for purpose, especially in the context of the changing economic and educational climate. It is failing far too many pupils, particularly at the bottom and top ends of the academic spectrum.
I want to concentrate on the baccalaureate. I am interested in what the cabinet secretary has said in that regard, but there are some other questions to be answered. The baccalaureate, if it is on an international scale, has an interesting dimension to it. As a Scottish baccalaureate is being proposed, I would be grateful if the minister could answer two specific questions.
What is the reasoning behind having a baccalaureate standing alongside highers and advanced highers? Further, what is the reason for having a baccalaureate that deals only with science and with modern languages? Why are baccalaureates in arts and social sciences not being considered at this stage?
I welcome the proposals regarding S4, particularly in relation to literacy and numeracy. However, I would like the minister to clarify whether the exams in S4 that she is proposing are national exams and to confirm that any internal assessment that might take place in S3 will be part of the process that builds up to S4 examinations.
I thank the member for her questions but, if the chamber will bear with me, today's statement deals with the national qualifications system. I will provide further details of the baccalaureate later in the session. However, I can say that the baccalaureate will be based on highers and advanced highers which, as I said in my statement, I intend to retain, and that it will include an interpretative project that will involve interdisciplinary work. The chief executives of life sciences companies, with whom I have had discussions, have said that that will provide a great opportunity to engage pupils, particularly those in S6, in work with local employers that will develop their experience not only of a workplace but of the current application of science in the community and in companies.
I am open to persuasion with regard to the extension of the baccalaureate concept to other areas; I simply think that, because of the needs of the economy and the drivers of economic growth, it would be appropriate to start with science and languages.
On S4, I welcome the member's support for Scottish certificates in literacy and numeracy. Those will be national examinations, but there will also be an element of assessment, which will be based on teachers' assessments throughout the period. Therefore, the assessment process between S1 and S3 is helpful in the development of literacy and numeracy national examinations. The importance of embedding literacy and numeracy in the curriculum and the priority that employers place on having those skills demonstrated in certificate form is part of the thinking behind the proposal. Teachers will welcome the fact that their professional assessment will be part of the assessment process, but the qualifications will be subject to national examination.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance notice of her statement. The Liberal Democrats support reform and the case for changes to and the updating of materials for examinations in Scotland. However, there needs to be greater clarity about what the cabinet secretary said this morning. She indicated that there is no need to take exams prior to S4 but that, at the same time, she is looking for new ways to provide flexibility in the system so that some students can take exams before S4 or take their highers earlier. Greater clarity is required on that matter.
The cabinet secretary proposes to abolish standard grades and replace them with a wider general qualification, but the Government wants to immediately add to that by introducing additional qualifications in literacy and numeracy. However, those qualifications will be below the standard of the new qualification. It is unclear, still, where in the child's progression the exams relating to those qualifications will be taken. Indeed, it is unclear whether all pupils will be required to get those qualifications. I would like the cabinet secretary to clarify those matters.
On the baccalaureates and highers, the cabinet secretary said that further statements will be made. However, on 19 March, the Minister for Schools and Skills assured Liz Smith that
"the baccalaureate is not an extra exam but a batch of advanced highers."—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; c 7101.]
I think that that matter needs urgent clarification from the cabinet secretary, rather than clarification later in the year.
Finally, we heard no mention of skills-for-work courses or qualifications, which were introduced by Liberal Democrats in government and were funded fully. The question of how they fit in with the proposed framework is important, so I would welcome a clarification of that matter.
The focus of my statement was on qualifications from S4 to S6. I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats for our determination to update the qualifications system and the materials to support the qualifications. As I said, we will be updating the content of the material relating to the qualifications that we are retaining.
Mr Purvis asked for more clarity about examination prior to S4. If the curriculum for excellence is to work in the way in which it was intended to work when it was introduced—at which time there was a Liberal Democrat Deputy Minister for Education and Young People—we need to ensure that the period from S1 to S3 is far more stimulating than it has been to date. We also need to reduce the overassessment that takes place in that period, in order to allow greater opportunities for teachers to exercise their professional abilities, make links between subjects and ensure that the context and content of learning are focused on the individual. We think that we can do that if we have a stimulating period from S1 to S3. Early presentations were designed to provide greater stimulation to young people and to stretch them further. However, the curriculum should be stretching young people; we do not need the qualifications system to do the stretching. The Liberal Democrats might not agree with that view, but we can explore that during the debate on the consultation.
The skills-for-work concept is important. I have been impressed by what I have heard from pupils, colleges and employers around the country about how they have found the courses and qualifications. We should celebrate what has been done in this area, and acknowledge the recent report about the success of the skills-for-work concept. The skills-for-work courses will certainly continue in S3 and S4.
We are simplifying the system, as our system of standard grade and intermediate 1 and 2 qualifications is too complex. We expect all pupils to take the Scottish certificates for literacy and numeracy, but that will be in S4 and will mark the start of the formal examination and qualification process.
The baccalaureates will be based on highers and advanced highers. The system will stimulate the taking of more than one science or language subject, and the qualification will be subject to an interpretative project. I thought that I made that clear in the debate on 19 March on the curriculum for excellence. However, we are not bringing in a new examination for the baccalaureate, which is why it is not the subject of the statement today.
We come now to questions from back benchers. As ever, brevity is encouraged—indeed, it is essential if we are to get through them all.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to ensuring flexibility for pupils with high academic achievement. What measures will she take to ensure that there is similar flexibility for pupils who wish to pursue vocational qualifications?
We have a great strength in our Scottish credit and qualifications framework, which is one of the few such frameworks in the world that has both vocational and academic qualifications. It is important that we see our school education and qualifications system in the round as part of a single system of lifelong learning. The experience that young people need to have of vocational education is important. We have to have parity of esteem. Indeed, a challenge to the country is whether we are outdated when we talk about vocational qualifications and academic qualifications. Our university colleagues often remind us that many of the qualifications that are pursued at university level are vocational qualifications. That is why, as part of our promotion of the curriculum for excellence, we need to be pursuing skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. There will be a combination of what would have been traditionally vocational and academic courses. Certainly, the improvement of school-college links is part of the concordat with local government. Indeed, improving vocational education for school pupils is one of the 15 commitments in that document.
I thank the minister for her statement and echo the broad welcome that it has been given by colleagues.
Because of the looming implementation of the curriculum for excellence, parents, pupils and teachers will be looking to see the influence that this statement will have on the shape of the curriculum. I appreciate that the proposals are out for consultation, but I would like the minister to tell us what she believes their impact will be on pupils, particularly those in S2 and S3. Will the subject options that are currently open to pupils who are going into S3 now be postponed until S4? Will most pupils now study a general or core curriculum for the first three years of secondary school, as opposed to the first two, and will that curriculum be subject based?
I thank the member for his general support.
The member referred to the looming implementation of the curriculum for excellence, but it might be helpful to embrace the reality, which is that we are already implementing the curriculum for excellence in many schools. If his question was about how the curriculum will be implemented in secondary schools in particular, the implication perhaps is that today's statement on national qualifications will be a key driver in helping to take that forward. Whether the qualifications system should be seen as the pinnacle of the curriculum is a matter for debate, but most educationists and teachers recognise that the curriculum should be the driver and that the qualifications should fit in around that.
On the issue of subject choices, a general criticism that has been made, particularly of the early years of secondary education, is that overassessment—this is a particular concern of teachers—limits and reduces young people's educational experience. As I said in the debate on the curriculum for excellence on 19 March, we want the Scottish education system to provide a broad general education, and I am firm in my commitment to that. The strength of the Scottish education system has been that it provides a broad general experience that gives young people more choice and opportunity in deciding which subjects to study at higher or advanced higher level and, in future, at the new general qualification level. The idea is to provide young people with more choice and opportunity and a wider educational experience that will not just enable them to pass exams but equip them for later life in a world where the ability to learn will be as important as the content and subject that they have studied. Learning to learn is a key element of the curriculum for excellence that needs to be taken forward. Young people will have choices as they go through the educational system, but they will also have the opportunity to have a broader experience.
I am also keen that we do not see everything in terms of what happens between S1 and S3. The curriculum for excellence is also about ensuring an effective transition from P7 to S1 by providing a continuity that is based around individuals rather than on the school in which they operate. We must see things within the context of a curriculum for ages three to 18, which is the essence of the curriculum for excellence; to segment things using a much narrower definition of what happens between ages 12 and 15 undermines the curriculum for excellence, which should be perceived as being a run-through from three to 18. The curriculum for excellence should provide for a broad general education system. If anything, we are providing more space and opportunity for teachers and pupils in S1 to S3 to experience a stimulating, invigorating education system.
I am happy to take on the baton from the previous Government in driving forward the curriculum for excellence. The previous Government believed that we had to provide a stimulating curriculum, particularly in S1 and S2; my proposals today will take forward the ethos that was started by the previous Government.
My question follows on from the previous comments. Today's announcement focuses on the structure of assessment rather than on subject content, but the Government has given a significant commitment to integrate Scottish history into the school curriculum. That is due to take place at about the time the new qualifications will be introduced. Will elements of Scottish history be included in the Scottish certificate for literacy, in the general qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5 and in the assessment streams at higher level?
The Government is committed to ensuring that Scottish history, heritage and culture are experienced by all young people throughout our education system. However, as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, I am reluctant to dictate the content of an examination process. If I were to do so, there would be an outcry from many people, including key educationists and teachers. However, I can say that I expect that the content of the examinations in the qualifications system will reflect the curriculum. From the draft curriculum outcomes, it is clear that an understanding of the Scottish perspective is embedded in the curriculum. That is probably as much detail as I can give.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments on vocational education, but can she provide further details on how she intends that skills for life and skills for work will be accredited? She will be aware of the excellent vocational education that is provided in North Lanarkshire and was recognised in the OECD report. However, local authorities are anxious about developing vocational education further without a guarantee that it will have accreditation that sits within the national qualifications framework. Will vocational education be fully recognised and accredited within the framework? That will not only provide the necessary parity of esteem, but will guarantee the confidence of young people, parents, pupils and further and higher education establishments.
As I said, I want to see skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. Those terms cover vocational education in the traditional sense and academic experience. Karen Whitefield raised an important point about vocational education, which is one of the big challenges that Scotland faces and was identified in the OECD report as being a key element. As anyone who has heard me speak about the issue will know, I am passionate about the fact that the Scottish credit and qualifications framework is one of the gems of the Scottish education system, which is renowned worldwide—although we need to make it work harder.
It is essential that vocational education be recognised, but one of the framework's strengths is that we can do that. I certainly want to ensure that the new qualifications are embedded in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. I certainly see the need for parity of esteem between traditional vocational education and academic education, which is an issue that the Government can drive forward. I thank the member for her question and for her continuing interest.
I welcome the new emphasis on literacy and numeracy and, in particular, the proposed new qualifications for S4, which will, in the light of the statistics that emerged this week, be very important. The cabinet secretary mentioned the continuous assessments in S1 to S3. Will she clarify whether those will be determining factors in the S4 exams on literacy and numeracy or whether those will be stand-alone exams?
In answering Murdo Fraser's question, I should reflect that we see the curriculum as applying to ages three to 18, with literacy and numeracy being embedded throughout. Teachers' assessments of literacy and numeracy levels, including in primary school and in the early years of secondary, are important.
In the consultation, we will tease out and reflect on the content of the question that Murdo Fraser has asked. The Scottish certificate for literacy and the Scottish certificate for numeracy will include a combination of national examination and assessment, but whether—as both he and his colleague Elizabeth Smith have asked—the assessments from S1 to S3, rather than just the assessment in S4, should count towards the certificate is a matter on which we will listen to teachers' views when we request responses. I know that teachers have already expressed concerns about whether the certificate should be based only on the examination or whether it should include the teacher's assessments. I have committed to listen to teachers' views on that. I know that, for teachers, a key driver is that their assessments should form part of the certificate. I have said yes to that, but the form and detail will clearly be subject to the discussion on the consultation.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.
The Liberal Democrats believe that, if our young people are to have all their achievements recognised, the system of education and examination must be transparent and have clarity. Therefore, we welcome the proposals and consultation. What specific steps does the cabinet secretary intend to take to involve young people, parents, commerce and industry and the tertiary education sector in developing the new framework?
If highers are regarded as the gold standard, where does the advanced higher fit in? Within a new framework, how will the Government sell the quality of the advanced higher to potential employers?
Hugh O'Donnell raises an important point about Scotland's general engagement with the education system. Clearly, young people have been, and will continue to be, involved in the development of the curriculum for excellence. It is important that education reform is not seen as a matter that interests only teachers and parents. Commerce and business obviously have a clear interest in such reform, which is why I spent a considerable time raising curriculum reform with outside interest groups—businesses in particular. I have met all 25 chief executives of the United Kingdom sector skills councils. At every one of those meetings, I have ensured that they are aware of the particular Scottish direction of the curriculum for excellence and the experiences that we are having in that context. I have also ensured that they are aware of their need not just to engage with colleges, as they are currently doing—I was delighted this week that a collaboration agreement has been signed between the sector skills councils and colleges on the qualifications, which I was instrumental in making happen—but to have greater involvement with employers to ensure that they take an interest in what is happening in schools.
The problem that we have had until now is that the complexity of the system has not made it easy for employers to use standard and intermediate grades. Employers themselves must also contribute to the education system.
Teachers are the professionals who will help, guide, develop and draw out the talents of our young people. However, we must have a community in which valuing education—which has always been valued highly in Scotland—is developed further. As I said when I chaired the life sciences session at the business in the Parliament event, I want to challenge employers about what they are doing to provide opportunities for young people, particularly those who are studying at higher grade level, to undertake work experience. We need to stimulate S6 in particular: the involvement of employers with pupils at that level is increasingly important.
In universities, as part of my on-going regular discussions, I have met—even in the past week—just about every principal in Scotland. I have told them that they need to be prepared for young people coming from schools with a different emphasis on individual, personalised learning. I want universities to open themselves up more and to have more involvement with schools, particularly at the advanced higher level.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to consider the national qualifications system. The minister acknowledges the disadvantages of the two-term dash to highers. However, does she not think that introducing a winter diet could be unsettling for pupils and difficult for schools to manage? In underlining her commitment to advanced highers, can the minister say how she will address the concern that there is not a sufficient range of advanced highers partly because of unavailability of teachers? Increased provision of advanced highers might make them more valued and recognised. Finally, will the minister answer the specific question that my colleague, Ken Macintosh, asked: when will pupils make choices about the exams that they will take, which may replace standard and intermediate grades?
On the last question, the consultation will run from June through to October. The opportunity for choices will be when pupils choose which subjects to take going forward. Some may start to study for their highers in S4 and will therefore make choices about their highers earlier than they would previously have done.
As far as the winter diet is concerned, if things were too difficult and ambitious, some students might not do anything. The status quo is always a comfort factor for many people. Of course, any implementation would have to be carefully planned, and it is something that the Scottish Qualifications Authority has been thinking about and developing for some time. However, if we are truly focused on individual learning and on ensuring that the needs of the individual are paramount, the flexibility to offer different opportunities for taking examinations should be welcomed. It could allow pupils to take two diets of highers over 18 months, rather than face a two-term dash for highers in S5 and another two-term dash for highers in S6. Such flexibility will provide more opportunities for in-depth learning and a better learning opportunity.
We should embrace opportunity, change and development—that is what the curriculum for excellence and the qualifications system are about. We should consider carefully the SQA's suggestions about a winter diet. I accept that they are subject to consultation and would need to be implemented very carefully, but let us not close our eyes to opportunities for the future.
There is time for one more question if both question and answer are short.
What impact will the proposals have on the colleges and universities that are training the teachers of the future, and when is the impact of the Government's proposals likely to kick in?
I am delighted to say that there will be 20,000 new teachers in training between 2007 and 2011. Every one of them will be enmeshed in the curriculum for excellence as part of their initial teacher training and will be well prepared to take forward the new qualifications system.
There is just time for a final question from John Park.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. You caught me out, there.
He did not expect that.
I was just heading back to my office.
Very briefly, please.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on consultation. I hope that she accepts, as I do, that it is important in building confidence in the system not just to consult businesses and others but to recognise the important role that trade unions play. I mean not just trade unions in the education sector, but trade unions in wider society, especially those that organise in the private and public sectors and that represent not just the workers but the views of wider society.
The member will be aware of my personal commitment—and the First Minister's commitment—to the Scottish Trades Union Congress this week to extend and embrace a social partnership arrangement between Scotland, the trade unions and employers generally. I will move forward in that spirit.
That brings us to the end of the ministerial statement and questions. Before we move to the next item of business, I inform members that I have received a request from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to make an urgent ministerial statement on the industrial action at the Grangemouth refinery. I am of the opinion that the matter is of sufficient urgency for a statement to be made. After consultation with business managers, it is my intention to take that item of business at 5 o'clock this afternoon. As a consequence, decision time will be moved to 5.30. The cabinet secretary will make a 10-minute statement, after which I will allow 20 minutes for questions. The necessary alterations to the daily business will be made and all members will be notified.