Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Education and Skills Committee 19 September 2018

19 Sep 2018 · S5 · Education and Skills Committee

Item of business

2018 Exam Diet (Curriculum and Attainment Trends)

Professor Scott Watch on SPTV

I have a few associated points, if I can remember them all. I was part of the process with the 16 to 18 curriculum that the SQA carried through. As Janet Brown knows, I was part of the curriculum review group on language, which went through a thorough process that tried to involve all agencies and parties. Although I am the author of the comments that Liz Smith talked about, there is no doubt that, to some extent, the issue was left to the SQA, and it should not have been. The key question is: where was Learning and Teaching Scotland and what did it do? Nevertheless, the process was carried through by an attempt to bring together all the relevant constituencies, so the issue does not lie with the SQA. There is a problem in schools that is associated with that issue. If you read school handbooks—if you have no life and nothing else to do; although it is edifying to read the handbooks of 359 secondary schools, where they exist, I say carefully—you will find that a significant minority of schools appear to have confused the curricular levels with the assessment levels. In print, one or two schools have drawn the conclusion that, because their children have reached a given curriculum level, they do not need to be presented for attainment at level 3. That bears upon a couple of the earlier comments. Some schools say quite clearly in the presentation policy in their handbooks that they will not present to level 3. One finds excellent practice, in that some schools consider everything from SCQF level 1 to SCQF level 6—which is entirely appropriate for fourth-year children, because some are at the end of that spectrum—and other schools tend to look at levels 4 and 5 only. It would be accurate to say that the majority of the schools in the latter pattern come from what might best be described as leafy suburb areas, but those schools still have groups of children who are operating at level 3 or below, and simply to say, “We don’t do that,” does not appear to serve the needs of all children. There are things running at several levels. The third thing that I was going to add is that local authorities have a key role here. There have been some interesting practices by local authorities—no names, no pack drill; this is not the occasion for that—and some local authorities have given clear guidance to schools about what they should do to deal with the S4 problem. I will quote one positive example from Glasgow City Council. Maureen McKenna’s handbook for headteachers on curriculum for excellence is exemplary. It makes very clear that they should countenance what happens in S3 and that the experiences and the work that is done in S3 can count towards the 160 hours, and that takes away some of the sting of doing it in one year instead of two. I note with interest, however, that that local authority then allows its headteachers to choose, so some of them have gone for six subjects and some have gone for seven and to some extent we are all over the place again. Nevertheless, that is a local authority fulfilling its duty and giving a clear lead in saying that S3 should count. If all local authorities did that—trust me, they do not—we might find ourselves in a stronger position.

Search Hansard contributions

Education and Skills Committee 19 September 2018

In the same item of business