More than a year after the Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment - more commonly known as the Hayward review - was published, in June 2023, the Scottish government finally responded last Thursday.
And, as has come to be expected after several education reviews (some commissioned by the government itself), it has ignored most of the key recommendations.
The government set out that there would be a greater mix of assessment, with less reliance on high-stakes exams - in some subjects, at some point. It was announced, too, that further reviews and working groups are needed to weigh up proposals such as a Scottish Diploma of Achievement.
However, it mentioned nothing, really, about the relationship between the broad general education (BGE) up to S3 and the S4-6 senior phase that has plagued the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) since its implementation. Nor were there any real answers to issues such as the repeated two-term dash.
Much of the reaction to the government’s Hayward response amounted to: is that it?
Little action after a host of education reviews
The reality is that, following a host of reviews - including the Muir report, multiple reviews by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Morgan report, the subject-choices inquiry and now the Hayward review - not much has happened. And it has taken a long time for not much to happen.
The analysis of headteacher Gillian Campbell-Thow stood out to me as particularly important. Speaking to BBC Alba, she said: “The current exam system has been in place for a long time, and the way that young people learn and the way that we teach has radically changed.
“So, there is a need for reform. We teach a skills-based curriculum, but have a knowledge-based exam system, so it doesn’t quite match.”
Arguments for those two different approaches aside, it is clear that the misalignment within the curriculum - and between the curriculum and assessment - has caused a great many structural difficulties in Scottish education for at least a decade.
As teachers tell me, the elephant in the room is the BGE and how its transition into the senior phase unfolds. Indeed, the Hayward review concluded that progression between the early years of secondary school and the senior phase had to be improved, noting that it was “perceived to lack coherence”.
‘Narrowing of subject choices’
One of the biggest consequences of CfE has been the narrowing of subject choices, particularly at S4 and in the most deprived schools - and this is frustrating because it is an unintended consequence. The change, about a decade ago, from two-year Standard Grades to one-year Nationals with the same class-contact time has significantly contributed to this lack of coherence between the two phases.
Throughout multiple reviews - including Hayward - there have been calls for a broadening of the curriculum in the later years, with aspirations towards the flexible nature of what was originally envisioned by CfE.
Rather than this, the government said last week that it is looking at a “rationalisation” of subjects that can be taken for qualifications. It is hard to see how this conclusion - seemingly turning the unintended consequences of the curriculum structure into formal policy - is in the spirit of the recent reform agenda.
The focus on the Hayward review has (perhaps understandably) been largely on whether exams should exist or not. The reality is that this binary debate was a bit of a distraction.
The Hayward review, as well as the current education bill, gave the government the perfect opportunity to finally take ownership of these big structural questions around progression, coherence, and the purpose of curriculum and assessment.
Once again, it looks to be an opportunity missed.
Barry Black is a postgraduate researcher at the University of Glasgow. He tweets @BarryBlackNE
For the latest in Scottish education delivered directly to your inbox, sign up for Tes’ The Week in Scotland newsletter
