Chamber and committees

I am interested in the feedback from Peter and Douglas on that as well. We have very much focused, quite rightly, on the impact on the learner—the young person. Are there implications for teachers’ workload if continuous assessment is added on to the current system as opposed to replacing nat 5?

I will follow up on exactly that point. Your recommendation is to replace the current model of a high-stakes, end-of-term, national 5 exam with a continuous assessment model. The Government has decided instead to add continuous assessment to the system as it currently exists. Do you have any concerns about that, or do you think that continuous assessment can work as an add-on to the exam system? Do we have to have one or the other, or can doing both in the same year work?

I have a final question. Professor Hayward, a few moments ago you used a helpful metaphor of the jigsaw that all these reviews add up together to make. If there was an origin point to this process, it would be the OECD review. This has been on-going for decades, but where we are now came from the OECD review. One of the very clear points that it made, which I think you have all mentioned at some point this morning, is that, for all intents and purposes, we do not really teach curriculum for excellence in the senior phase. We teach curriculum for excellence in broad general education, and then we teach to the test. Your recommendations were about bridging that gap and enabling us to deliver CFE as intended in the senior phase. Will what the Government has outlined so far address the specific point of concern from the OECD that there is poor articulation from BGE to the senior phase?

I do not propose listing everybody who should be consulted. My point is that the requirement is to consult only with the SAC. It would be helpful if qualifications Scotland was required to consult stakeholders in the system more widely. That does not mean consulting every stakeholder on every issue, but it would give the organisation a clear mechanism or impetus to at least be able to evidence that it has consulted regularly on key strategic issues with whoever the relevant stakeholders might be. As you recognise, that has been a challenge for the SQA.

I do not think that everybody who is sitting round this table would agree that it does, or that it does so effectively. I am therefore proposing that the provision is strengthened to be a bit more specific on the need to consult and engage, but not to be specific about who that would be with and the mechanisms that should be used.

I have a brief question on the charters. Sections 10 and 11, on creating the charters, require qualifications Scotland to

“consult such persons as it considers appropriate.”

The subsequent section, which is on review or revision of the charters, contains no requirement for consultation; qualifications Scotland would be empowered to do that unilaterally. Should the position in the earlier sections not be replicated so that there is a requirement for any review or revision of a charter—any new version of it—to be consulted on?

Thank you—that is much appreciated.

Good morning. I will follow up on that theme. I will start with the learner and teacher interest committees. My understanding of the current proposed structure is that they will report to senior management. Is there not a stronger rationale for them to report directly to the board, given the experience that we have had with the learner panel at the SQA? In essence, the learner panel often bluntly provided feedback that SQA senior management did not want to hear, and the management made sure that that did not get any further. If the two committees were directly accountable to the board, there would be nothing stopping senior management from engaging with them and soliciting their opinions where required, but that would strengthen accountability and resolve the issue that we have seen with the current equivalent structures.

That is much appreciated.

The relevant sections of the bill specify that a majority of members of the committees have to be learners or teachers and practitioners, which sounds good until you realise that that means that up to 49 per cent of the committees can be staff of the organisation. The bill requires that staff cannot be a majority; therefore, just under half of the members can be staff.

This goes back to the question that was asked a moment ago, but surely those committees do not require qualifications Scotland staff to be on them at all. They are committees that are supported by qualifications Scotland staff and that QS staff can draw on for advice. I struggle to understand why there would be a requirement for any staff to sit as a member of those committees. I would totally get it if staff were to provide a secretarial function and appear before the committee to ask it questions or be asked questions, but I am confused as to why there would be any members of staff sitting on the committees as members.

Absolutely—thank you.

I have a final question. There is a section in the bill that requires consultation with the strategic advisory council. Would it not be more in the spirit of the wider reform agenda of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and so on, for that requirement for consultation to be broader than just consultation with the SAC? It would not have to be incredibly specific about how that should take place and list stakeholders, but there could be a broader requirement for the organisation to consult key stakeholders beyond the advisory council.