Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) was first proposed in 2004 by a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, and subsequently enacted in schools from 2010 by the SNP. Its principles and vision were widely praised around the world and long enjoyed all-party support at the Scottish Parliament.
Despite this consensus on the overall direction of travel, however, the implementation of CfE has been troubled. Particular concerns have been raised about the role of assessment in driving learning, curriculum narrowing and excessive bureaucracy. Such criticisms led to a series of “independent” reviews, most notably by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2015 and 2021.
In this article, we reflect upon the findings of University of Stirling research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, published today. This explored patterns of curriculum-making in Scottish secondary schools, along with their impacts on young people in relation to subject uptake, attainment and transitions within and beyond school. We sought to understand the factors influencing curriculum decisions made by pupils and their families, teachers/schools and local authorities. The research employed mixed methods, comprising analysis of linked existing datasets, along with new data generated through a survey of school leaders and focus groups and interviews with local authority officers, school leaders and teachers, young people and their parents.
Our findings paint a stark picture of a curriculum reform that has diverged considerably from its original aims, with significant unintended consequences for young people, teachers and schools, raising serious equity concerns. The findings fall into three areas: patterns of provision, explanations for these patterns and effects.
In the senior phase of secondary education, we see an overall reduction in subjects studied and entries for national qualifications in S4, confirming that the curriculum at this stage has narrowed. There has been a steeper decline in enrolments in subjects such as social subjects, expressive arts and modern languages, compared with subjects seen as core curriculum (for example, maths and English).
There is evidence of social stratification in subject entry patterns in S4: a steeper decline (for example, fewer entries, a narrower range of subjects) and a greater likelihood of delayed patterns of entry to SCQF level 5 qualifications (in S5 rather than in S4) and Higher qualifications (in S6 rather than in S5) affecting students in schools serving disadvantaged areas.
Warnings over Curriculum for Excellence
In the “broad general education” (BGE) phase, there is some evidence of innovation (for example, interdisciplinary learning), but the overall picture is one of traditional subject configurations to prepare students for senior-phase study. In many schools there is considerable fragmentation, with students seeing 15 or more subject teachers in a typical week. In some schools, there is evidence of very early subject choice (often as early as the end of S1), as students are channelled into senior-phase subjects. The research suggests that, rather than being driven by the principle of the BGE to provide a broad foundational education for life, this provision is more often than not shaped by a desire to provide a series of taster courses for the senior phase.
The research confirms earlier findings that the broad purposes and principles of CfE are welcomed by many teachers, but also suggests that these purposes (notably, the “four capacities” of CfE) are only moderately influential in many schools as the foundation for curriculum planning. Instead, much curriculum-making is driven by external demands for data, especially evidence of raised attainment in national qualifications.
This backwash effect from national qualifications encourages a culture of performativity, leading to the instrumental selection of content, the development of teaching approaches and the organisation of the curriculum to maximise attainment in the senior phase.
Examples include the extreme fragmentation of the BGE curriculum mentioned above, as well as the existence of practices that are counter-educational and designed to enhance the school’s attainment statistics; for example, abolishing low-performing subjects in the senior phase, teaching to the test and channelling students into courses where they will gain the best grades, regardless of individuals’ interests. These practices are widely disliked by many in the system, including directors of education, but are seen as difficult to mitigate. Such issues are exacerbated by teacher shortages in key subjects, notably technology.
Despite fewer young people entering SCQF level 5 qualifications in S4 since 2013, a higher proportion of those who took up these qualifications have passed. Similarly, the proportion of successful passes of Higher qualifications in S5 has increased since 2014.
This must be offset, however, by clear evidence that, in schools with a narrower curriculum, there seems to be negative consequences for young people in relation to wider attainment, transitions to subsequent study in school and destinations beyond school. A narrower curriculum in S4 is associated with fewer qualifications subsequently attained at SCQF level 5 in S5, at Higher level in S5 and at Advanced Higher level in S6 (when taking account of demographic and school characteristics).
There are also associations between a narrower curriculum in S4 and lower attainment in Pisa (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests, including measures of global competence; and between a narrower curriculum in S4 and fewer positive destinations after leaving school, especially in relation to higher education entry. When we consider the fact that schools serving disadvantaged areas are more likely to offer a narrower curriculum, this raises serious equity concerns.
In summary, educational purposes - that is, developing in young people the knowledge, skills and attributes necessary for living in an increasingly complex world - seem not to be the primary drivers of curriculum-making in Scottish secondary schools. Instead, the research provides ample evidence that a great deal of curriculum-making is driven by a need to fulfil external demands for the right kinds of data, particularly relating to attainment.
It is concerning to see evidence that curriculum provision, designed primarily to enhance attainment statistics, can act contrary to the stated goals of CfE and may even be counter-educational. It is a cause for concern that some curriculum-making practices have negative consequences on subsequent attainment and transitions, predominantly affecting young people from less-advantaged backgrounds.
These social justice issues are particularly ironic - and alarming - given the Scottish government’s policy focus on closing the attainment gap. It is thus imperative that these issues are taken seriously by all stakeholders, as Scotland redesigns the system following the reports by the OECD, Professor Ken Muir and - due this month - Professor Louise Hayward.
Dr Marina Shapira, Professor Mark Priestley, Dr Camilla Barnett, Tracey Peace-Hughes and Michelle Ritchie are education researchers at the University of Stirling
