Hansard

I have a lot to cram into four minutes, but the cabinet secretary need not worry—I can write to her at length about this if required. I agree with Liam Kerr and Willie Rennie that we also need at least one full afternoon’s debate.

The Greens have long argued against high-stakes, end-of-term exams and in favour of continuous assessment. We want to see a rounded measurement of a student’s knowledge and ability, not a snapshot of how they respond to specific circumstances, which can be significantly affected by variables such as illness.

The pandemic gave us comparative data sets, which prove that there is a problem here somewhere. In 2020, there were no exams and grades were eventually issued on the basis of teachers’ professional judgment. Attainment went up across the board, but the attainment of working-class kids went up far more—the attainment gap narrowed. In 2021, there were no exams again. There were quasi, internal exams in schools, with the same effect but to a lesser extent.

Either normal exams are devaluing working-class students or teacher judgment is overestimating them. I trust teacher judgment to a significant extent, but, whatever side we come down on, the question needs to be answered as we go on with the process: why do traditional high-stakes, end-of-term exam models result in such a wide attainment gap between those from the most and the least deprived backgrounds, whereas models that base grades on evidence that is generated through continuous assessment or teacher judgment result in a far narrower gap?

The reality is that our exam and assessment system has not changed since the Victorian era, but we know so much more about young people, learning and how to measure attainment and achievement than we did back then. In Scotland, we overassess, and we often assess the wrong things. We are valuing what we measure, not measuring what we value. Young people, colleges, universities and employers want more than that. Professor Hayward’s recommendations are the opportunity to move from the 19th to the 21st century.

I recognise the tension between the appetite for reform and the clear message from teachers that the current system is not achieving what we want, and the sense—primarily also from teachers—that they are already overwhelmed and would struggle with more change. We certainly cannot increase teacher workload by adding more internal assessment responsibilities on top of existing ones, but we need to break that impasse. I am glad that the motion makes clear that the intention is to achieve significant reform in this parliamentary session.

Young people have repeatedly made it clear through consultation that they overwhelmingly want those reforms, particularly the move to continuous assessment. We saw that in the review of the 2021 alternative certification model. A move away from external exams requires trust in teachers—the kind of trust that exists in other systems, such as in Finland. However, Scottish teachers do not feel trusted by the SQA. Many feel that the standardised assessments indicate a lack of trust by the Scottish Government.

There are a couple of specific issues, which I will run through, that I think we need to address. Professor Stobart highlighted that in having external exams in all three years of the senior phase we are an outlier. That is a key reason why we are not really delivering CFE in the senior phase—we are teaching to the exam. The Greens would rather end external examination in S4, but we recognise the need to mitigate against qualifications without an external examination being seen as lesser. We want to see a reduced role for exams across the senior phase.

We also need to resolve the contradiction between the ability to choose up to nine national 5s and each course requiring at least 140 hours. We cannot timetable nine times 140 hours in a school year. That speaks to a wider misalignment between the curriculum and the qualifications systems, as identified by the OECD. That, in turn, is the result of a lack of cohesion between the SQA and Education Scotland. The governance reforms need to address that, potentially by putting more strategic direction within the Government’s learning directorate.

The Greens are very enthusiastic about Professor Hayward’s recommendations, and I urge the cabinet secretary to implement them pretty much in full. I have one caveat about the diploma—we need to make sure that those who do not get a diploma do not end up with the stigma that exists in systems such as that in the US around not graduating from high school.

There is a really important opportunity for employers, in particular, with the personal pathway and project learning, which will recognise a potential candidate’s teamworking skills, leadership abilities and communication skills—aspects that traditional subject qualifications do not give an indication of to an employer.

I have barely scratched the surface, but I recognise the need to wind up. There are many more issues to touch on, but there is a high expectation that we achieve a lot with the reform process. There is a relatively high level of consensus, so we cannot afford half measures.

One clear lesson from the most recent reform to curriculum for excellence was that it was a mistake to do only half of it and not to reform qualifications at the same time.