National Qualifications (2001 Exam Diet)
Our next item of business is a statement by Mr Jack McConnell, on national qualifications and the 2001 exam diet. As usual, there will be questions at the end of the statement.
Like everyone, I was saddened to read this morning of yet another tragic suicide of a young person in Scotland, which should be a source of great concern to us all. I can assure the chamber that we remain committed to tackling the problems that beset young people in our schools, including school bullying. In the meantime, our thoughts should be with the families and friends of those who have died—not just this week, but recently.
I am pleased to provide a further report on the 2001 examination diet. My previous statement on progress towards this summer's exam diet was just before Easter. The exams are now over, and young people should enjoy a well-earned break. The overall picture of this summer's exams is a successful one. I thank all those—the Scottish Qualifications Authority, teachers, lecturers, markers, examiners, invigilators and the tolerant young people—who have contributed to achieving that.
I am pleased to confirm that the SQA, in co-operation with the national exam co-ordinator, has recruited sufficient markers. The SQA has also confirmed that all markers have the required experience. There were problems, however, and we will review the process for appointing markers to see what lessons can be learned. I acknowledge the contribution that was made by all those involved in the exercise and I am sure that the Parliament will join me in recording our thanks to local authorities, schools, colleges, teachers and lecturers for their efforts in recent weeks.
It has been crucial this year to improve the management of data. By the end of the month the SQA will have provided to centres three sets of reports on data accuracy and progressively and systematically reduced the number of potentially incorrect entries in the system—an unprecedented effort to ensure the integrity of the data that are received and recorded. That has meant a great deal of work for staff in schools and colleges.
The data transmission process will be reviewed to see how it can be streamlined, but detailed scrutiny is essential if candidates are to be confident that the results on their certificates are correct and that their achievements are properly rewarded. I thank again all those who have been involved in that process. The national exam co-ordinator wrote to centres at the end of last week, and stressed the importance of a final data check. I reiterate that today. The final check will provide vital assurances about the integrity of the data that are held by the SQA. I cannot overstate the importance of investing time this week to provide a final sign-off of data.
I want candidates to be well-informed about the arrangements for certification in August. The SQA issued an updated national qualifications digest at the beginning of June, which contained information about progress on data input, summer helplines, the sequence of results and other information. The SQA has also issued, through centres, details for candidates on what information the certificates will contain, and information on the quality assurance processes that underpin assessment. That information is also on the SQA's website. I will write to MSPs next week with details about the certificate, the timetable for certification and SQA helplines. I hope that colleagues will find that helpful in dealing with inquiries from their constituents.
The SQA will ensure that centres have information about their candidates' results before the candidates receive their certificates. That will allow candidates to get immediate advice from their schools or colleges about anything they do not understand, or on what to do if they are disappointed by their results. Along with their certificate, candidates will receive information explaining how to contact the candidate inquiry line. There also will be two technical helplines, which will be staffed by school account managers and college customer relations managers, who will take calls from their own centres.
As I stated in my previous report, my department and the SQA have agreed a series of performance measures. Those measures cover critical areas, and provide a sound basis for publicly measuring the SQA's success in surmounting the difficulties of last year. A copy will be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre for the information of all MSPs.
The primary aim of last year's independent appeals review was to review results and ensure that standards were properly maintained. The independent appeals review team will report to me on the lessons that have been learned and I will issue a summary to centres before they return in the autumn term.
My objectives for this year's appeals are that appeals should be made only when a realistic prospect of success exists, that appeals are supported by high-quality evidence to ensure that every candidate is given the best grade that they can achieve and that all appeals are processed quickly and accurately.
The appeals system ensures that we do not track performance in the exam room as the only measure of ability. Appeals exist primarily to give candidates whose exam performance did not reflect the ability that they showed in their work at school or college a second chance, using evidence from their course work. To help everyone, centres will receive information about this year's appeals that will include a summary of the process, confirmation of roles and a description of the evidence required. That will be supported by an appeals pack to coincide with the publication of results.
In November, I appointed a smaller, interim SQA board, against a background of broad recognition that the previous board had been too large. The interim board is working well, but I am taking steps to bring board membership back up to 15, as required by statute. I will advertise for new SQA board members after the holiday period, when advertising will catch the maximum number of possible candidates and we will have completed diet 2001.
The data reconciliation exercise for colleges took longer to complete than expected, with consequences for the issuing of certificates to candidates. I understand that the exercise is complete but for a few cases. I regret the long delay. It is important that lessons are learned and that improvements are made for next year.
The national qualifications review was conducted by representatives of schools, further education colleges, education authorities, the SQA and Learning and Teaching Scotland—LTS—through the national qualifications steering group. The Scottish Further Education Unit and the Association of Scottish Colleges were also involved. I am grateful for their work. Their full report was published on Monday 25 June and I note that members agreed all the recommendations.
The steering group was right to emphasise that the new qualifications have delivered important benefits—particularly the better ladder of qualifications for young people. That creates opportunities and allows previously unacknowledged achievements to be recognised. The uptake of the new national qualifications has been greater than expected. That is proof that they are meeting needs. However, we must make the system better and easier to operate.
The report of the national qualifications review makes several recommendations to ease the burden of assessment, which I welcome. They include a redesign of the qualification certificate and a review of appointment procedures for marking. The report recommended first, a speedy revision of assessment arrangements, course by course, to reduce the complexity, variety and total volume of assessment. Secondly, provision of advice and exemplification on assessment was recommended. Thirdly, a series of actions designed to establish a better common understanding of standards was recommended. To clarify the purpose of national assessment bank items, increasing consistency and purpose and improving quality assurance and availability were recommended. I make it clear that I fully accept those recommendations and will make arrangements for their immediate implementation.
A task group will proceed with the work on implementation. The group will be chaired by the national exam co-ordinator and will include representatives from schools, further education colleges, local authorities, the SQA and LTS. I expect the task group to meet for the first time before schools return in August. The national qualifications steering group will continue to advise the Executive more generally.
The same agreement has not been achieved on what can be done to reduce the volume of assessment more radically. The report recommends consultation on two options that would affect to some degree the underlying principles of the new national qualifications.
Option A would allow candidates to achieve a course award by success in the external exam and make unit certification available as an option. That would allow a reduction in internal assessment for candidates who did not wish to acquire unit certification. Option B would allow candidates to achieve an ungraded course award by showing that they had achieved the full range of unit learning outcomes, with an optional external assessment available for candidates who wished to achieve a graded award. That would allow a reduction in external assessment and in related internal assessment.
Neither option is straightforward, but we must act. As soon as it is possible, we will consult openly on the options identified. I want the Parliament to be in no doubt that I am determined to reduce the assessment burden to allow teachers to teach and students to learn.
A number of other recommendations relating to learning, teaching and staff development will also be progressed. The task group recommended that further consideration be given to streamlining the reporting of information about registrations, entries and results to the SQA. I want that recommendation to be dealt with quickly. I hope that substantial changes can be made for next year. That would ease the burden on teachers, lecturers and administrative staff in schools and in the SQA.
Nobody is complacent about the significance of delivering accurate certification for candidates on 14 August or about the need for effective communication to ensure that all candidates know what to expect. My officials will remain in close contact with the SQA over the coming weeks. They will focus attention on monitoring the SQA's progress against the project plan for diet 2001.
I believe that we have taken the action required to enable the SQA to complete a successful examination round. I would like to thank all those who contributed to that this year. In these critical final weeks I wish every success to everyone involved. All those responsible must continue their efforts—Scotland's young people deserve no less.
I give a broad welcome to the largely positive developments and progress that have taken place since Easter. I add also the Scottish National Party's appreciation of the efforts that everyone involved in the process is making. This year, the overwhelming concern is for everything to go well for all the young people concerned.
The minister acknowledged problems with marking and said that he will review the process. I commend that action, as this week I was approached by a teacher who has experienced nothing but problems with the marking process. Recently, he reluctantly returned scripts that had been sent to him, because he felt strongly that, owing to the shortened time scale that he had been allocated and his non-attendance at markers' meetings, the candidates might be at a disadvantage. He felt that those factors limited severely the efficiency with which he could mark this year's papers. Are such experiences being collated to inform the review? Will teachers be given opportunities to feed into the process of improvement for future years?
Will the minister confirm whether he and those involved will refer to the numerous, detailed and specific recommendations of last year's three inquiry reports when they progress plans for the future performance of and further improvements to SQA practice? Developments to date may be sufficient for this year, but there is no question but that more radical action is necessary. Will the minister further confirm that any improvements will be adequately resourced so that they will be fully effective? What plans exist to include reform of the SQA and the recommendations of the national qualifications review in a wider consideration of the future for Scottish education?
It is appropriate for any long-term review to include on-going monitoring of the implementation of the new qualifications and the role of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. This year, we are committed to a review of the future of the SQA board and of the status of the SQA. Given the excellent work that was done by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—which produced one of the three inquiry reports referred to by Irene McGugan—it is important that the long-term review goes ahead.
All three reports informed the action that we have taken. Due to those reports, and the efforts of many people, we have managed to maintain a broad consensus across Scotland to work together to deliver this year's examination diet. Any report recommendations that it was not possible to implement this year will lie on the table to be addressed soon after 14 August.
Many lessons are to be learned from this year, not least from those who have experienced the system at first hand. I pass on every individual case that is passed to me, including comments from people who have been involved in marking. Comments are passed to me directly or they are given to me by MSPs or by other means—that includes the letters page of The Herald and other publications. All those comments are helpful.
It is appropriate that we learn the lessons, but we should not give in to the problems that have existed. The number of markers has doubled in recent years. There is no point allocating blame. Our resolve must be to solve the problems and to ensure that the marking system works better in future years. For example, one of the changes that will probably have to be made in years to come is the introduction of a process of appointing markers annually, rather than on two or three-year contracts. We can simplify the system, address some of the difficulties and make the system better for all concerned. As we try to achieve that, I am learning at all times from the lessons of those who are most involved.
In trying to calm our nerves, the minister has clearly taken today's prayer to heart. Thankfully, there will be no deep intakes of breath following the minister's statement.
I, too, pay tribute to teachers, the staff of the SQA, civil servants and, indeed, the minister for the effort that has been put into trying to bring about diet 2001 on time and to deliver accurate results. This year, the SQA clearly has gone to great lengths to ensure that better information is available to make management decisions, which has assisted in identifying problems where they existed. I have no doubt that those problems have been tackled. No one will be more relieved about that than the First Minister, who I am sure will praise the fact that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs has intervened a great deal more than his predecessor did.
I have three questions to put to the minister. First, it is my understanding that the advice that the minister received previously was that the board of the SQA could be constituted of the current 11 members, that being the quorum that allowed it to proceed. It would be a great problem if that advice were wrong. I welcome the fact that the minister will propose new appointments, but will he reassure me that, if that was the quorum and the number of members, every meeting of the board has been fully attended? One would not wish there to be a successful legal challenge against the board.
Secondly, I welcome what the minister said about reducing teacher work load. Two options have been mentioned. Will the minister tell us whether options other than A and B will be considered?
Finally, a number of ministers have mentioned in passing that the SQA may be up for a further review of its structure and its relationship with the Scottish Executive. Is the minister able to give us any further details about its status as a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation? Will it become more directly involved with the Scottish Executive?
The review that I referred to has been under way for some months. It is not a new review; it was referred to by the Minister for Finance and Local Government in his statement last Thursday. I hope that no one has any preconceived ideas about what its outcome might be. We need to choose the best structure and organisation for delivering Scotland's examination system. We will continue to work towards that. The Parliament will have a chance to debate the matter in due course.
On the legality of the current board, the advice that I have is that the legal position allows for vacancies on the board; any vacancies do not nullify the decisions of the board. It is important that we take action to fill those vacancies. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate to do that while the Executive was reviewing non-departmental public bodies. It is inappropriate to do it in July, but we will certainly do it in August. My understanding is that all the decisions of the SQA in the first half of 2001 will stand any legal test that anybody wishes to throw at them, although I hope that that will not be necessary or desirable.
I echo the comments that Mr Monteith made about the way in which everyone has worked together. It is important for the confidence of young people that we do not get into scoring political points on the issue of the examination diet. I am grateful to the Opposition parties for the way in which they have handled the matter in recent months. My experience of school visits in the past two months is that young people have seriously appreciated the way that the Parliament has acted.
I welcome the minister's statement, which seems practical and contains lots of positive news. I thank everyone involved in the work that has gone into preparing diet 2001. Like Jack McConnell, I wish the candidates well.
I have a couple of questions about this year's diet and about the review. There are lessons to be learned from the marking problems. I wonder about scheduling the examinations to help the recruitment of markers. The minister mentioned the final check. Reading between the lines, I take it that some of the individual centres have yet to undertake or solidify that final check. Will the independent appeals review team have any direct involvement in this year's process, or is it a back-up?
The review is welcome and the minister has renewed an important pledge to reduce the complexity, variety and volume of assessment. Teachers will be absolutely delighted to hear him repeating that pledge which, I hope, will be fulfilled. The minister said that reducing the volume of assessment is still causing dilemmas and talked about the options that are available. Can he give us an indication of the nature and extent of the consultation and of the time scale involved?
I am also interested in the fact that he talked about considering assessment course by course. What does that mean? I hope it does not mean that there will a one-size-fits-all answer to the problem. I welcome the further consideration of streamlining registrations, which were near the heart of a lot of the problems that we had last year.
I understand that next year's examination diet timetable allows three weeks for marking—longer than was available this year or last year. That is certainly an improvement and it shows that some of the lessons of last year and this year have been learned.
We have just received the report and we need to plan the consultation. We will do that in due course and I want to do it in consultation with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am also keen to get moving quickly on the course-by-course review. It is blatantly obvious which courses need to be reviewed first. The report makes reference to that, in particular to the high-volume courses. Our efforts will be directed towards attempting to conclude the course-by-course review by the end of the year, so that it will not take too long and so that people can be confident that there will be action.
On the general issue of assessment, I add to what Ian Jenkins said by reflecting on the fact that it is not just teachers who have raised the burden of assessment, although they have made such points, which has been helpful. Inside the SQA, processing the assessments is a burden but, perhaps more important, many pupils have told me that assessment is getting in the way of them learning their course. That is a problem and that is why we have to examine the assessments carefully, course by course, to secure the right balance between internal and external assessment.
It is vital that everybody—not just in the individual centres, schools and colleges but in the SQA—works together closely over the next week or so to get the final checks right. Thousands of young people have withdrawn from courses over the past year. Many of them have been identified, but some have not been. Clearly, they will not get certificates. We must ensure that those who do not get certificates in August are those who have been withdrawn. It is vital that everybody works together to ensure that that happens.
It is also vital that we minimise the number of individual certificates that have some form of inaccuracy on them. There has probably never been an examination diet anywhere in the world where every certificate is right. We need to be conscious of that, but I want to minimise the number of certificates with which there may be problems. We must have a streamlined, efficient and effective system, so that young people who have a question on 14, 15 or 16 August can get that question answered promptly. That should be our task—not just to strive for the maximum number of certificates that are right, but to deal quickly with those that are wrong.
Seven members would like to be called and we have just under seven minutes, so exchanges should be short.
I thank the minister for his statement.
On the appeals process for this year and next year, the minister will agree that it is unacceptable that some students received their final results only in the past month. That has had implications. Will the minister consider sending results directly to candidates? There has been some delay and students have moved from the institutions that submitted them as candidates. That has caused problems. The proposal might be worth considering.
I welcome the minister's comments on the further education sector. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee has been concerned about that sector. Will the minister assure us that the problems in the further education sector this year will not happen again next year and that the same level of input and resources that has been used to alleviate the problems in the school sector will be put in place to ensure that students who undertake further education courses will not be disadvantaged next year?
I hope that the minister will accept that it is unacceptable and unhelpful to read about a drip effect in respect of changes to the assessment procedure, particularly in respect of external examinations. As the minister rightly said, any changes will have huge implications for the whole national qualifications system. It would be much better to take changes forward through consensus and informed discussion. What mechanism is there—if there is one—for adding further options to the consultation on changes to the external and internal procedures?
The arrangements that I outlined are for both types of centre—further education colleges and schools. There will be special helplines for both and there will be people with whom the centres are used to dealing regularly. I hope that we can secure the same efficiency and effectiveness in the further education sector as we hope to achieve in the schools. As Mr Monteith said, I may have to take many deep breaths.
I assure members that we are doing and have done everything we can to ensure that the process works well. I have provided such assurances for months.
I do not envisage a second round of appeals next year. I hope that the first round of appeals will work well and can build confidence in the system. I also hope that we will be able to communicate the outcome of appeals to candidates quickly. The plan is to do so in the traditional way, through the centres. I hope the centres will accept their responsibility to pass on the results to their candidates.
On assessment, there is sometimes a difficulty with involving so many stakeholders, but it is right to try to build consensus for change through stakeholder working groups. Discussions that are at an early stage can sometimes produce odd pieces of information in the press, but that is a risk worth taking to build support. In the months ahead, I hope that those involved in the task group will respect the confidentiality that should go with their position.
As part of the consultation, there will be space to propose other options in addition to the two options that I have outlined as being the most likely to go forward.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement. I have three short, sharp questions.
First, I heard what the minister said about appeals, but there was a little hint of—and a wee bit of concern about—rigidity in how appeals are dealt with this year. Will the minister assure us that the guiding principle will be, "If in doubt, we'll hear it out," and will give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly in borderline cases?
Secondly, on the data reconciliation exercise for colleges, can the minister tell us how many cases are still outstanding and when they will be resolved?
Thirdly, what is the total spend on this year's diet likely to be? Will funding be guaranteed for next year's diet if necessary?
The questions are easy.
Mr Neil will not be surprised to learn that they are easy questions for which there are probably not exact answers. I do not have a figure for the exact spend on this year's diet or, indeed, last year's, but we have made the necessary funding available and we will continue to do so. These examinations are critical. I will soon be able to clarify the additional resources that have been made available to the SQA.
The number of outstanding cases reduces every day, which is a good thing. We are now down to a few. At the end of this week or the beginning of next, I will be happy to clarify for Mr Neil and others how many cases are outstanding at the end of June. I expect to receive an updated report from the SQA within a few days.
The most important thing about this year's appeals is to get the guidelines right in advance, so that the centres send in the right evidence and submit only appeals that have a decent prospect of success. One problem last year was the processing of the appeals and the way in which some of them were tackled. On some occasions a rigid approach was taken. The matters were dealt with through the second independent appeals process. There were also problems with the nature of the evidence that some centres submitted and the hopes that built up among some candidates that passing individual unit assessments is equivalent to passing a prelim; it is not.
The lessons have been learned throughout Scotland. I hope that, as a result of the appeals pack that we will produce this summer, all schools, centres and colleges will be able to advise candidates much more effectively about when appeals should be submitted and that they will be able to submit the right evidence to back up the appeal.
I welcome the minister's statement, especially his commitment to consult the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
Does the minister agree that teachers and young people are stakeholders in assessments? Can he give a commitment that young people will be listened to? The evidence that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee took from young people indicated that assessments have been very stressful. We must listen to young folk.
Has any thought been given to the SQA and the centres having a common information technology system? That would make the situation much easier.
On the involvement of young people, I pay tribute to Jennifer Bryce, from Cumnock Academy, and Victoria MacDuff, from St Modan's High School in Stirling, who both served on the ministerial review group. Their input has been vital in giving us an understanding of the experience of the people who sit the exams. My commitment to reducing the burden of assessment comes as much from talking to senior pupils throughout Scotland over the past 12 months as from talking to teachers or to people at the SQA. I hope that we can continue to involve senior pupils, as many schools do, in policy formulation. That is important.
I am keen to consider other ideas, as Cathy Peattie suggests, as we look beyond this diet and try to improve all the arrangements in the future.
We have run out of time, but I will take the four remaining members if they ask one question each. The minister will give an omnibus reply.
If the minister were wearing a halo today, it would be a 1,000-watt halo. Well done.
I will focus on the data that have come into the SQA system from the Scottish Vocational Education Council. One of the problems in the SQA was that the SCOTVEC data contained records for individuals in many different places. We will encourage people to come back into the educational system in years to come. Are we ensuring, as part of the current data clean-up, that data that are not being used this year, but that may be needed in subsequent years, are addressed?
Can the minister assure us that his package of measures will greatly reduce the flood of paperwork that engulfs schools and colleges?
Will the minister give a commitment to continue initiatives such as meeting head teachers and teachers at the secondary schools that serve my constituency of Paisley South? Will he also give a commitment to listen to the concerns of teachers in trying to resolve on-going problems?
Following on from Hugh Henry's question, I return to the theme of acquiring direct feedback from Scotland's teachers. They can write to the letters pages of The Herald or to their local MSPs, but is it possible for the minister to set up a channel of communication to get direct feedback from all of Scotland's teachers on the past changes and the way forward?
On the first question, we are endeavouring to do just what Mr Stevenson has asked and ensure that all data are appropriate and accurate. On Mr Gorrie's question, not only am I committed to reducing greatly the amount of paperwork, but I believe that we have already done so. We are working constantly to achieve that aim. Furthermore, we are working to ensure that the paperwork received is useful and is not just a burden.
With regard to meeting and listening to teachers, Mr Henry knows that I have had a productive meeting with head teachers from the Renfrewshire Council area. The meeting happened at a critical time in the diet and has produced a helpful change in the arrangements. I will continue to meet and to listen to teachers. I have conducted dozens of meetings with teachers across Scotland since I became Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs at the end of October. I have no intention of changing that approach to my job in August or beyond.
I thank members for their co-operation.