The long-awaited review of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) praises its “bold, aspirational, value-driven and future-oriented approach”, underlining that the “basic ideas of CfE are still valid” and “inspiring” almost two decades after it was conceived.

However, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) review also highlights fundamental flaws in the implementation of CfE - including a wide divide between its aspirations and the demands of the heavily exams-based system in the latter part of secondary school.

Less than two hours after it was published, education secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville’s response included the announcement that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is to be “replaced”.

The 139-page report aims high praise at Scotland’s teachers but notes that their work is undermined by class contact time that is high in international terms.

CfE is also found to be “overloaded with numerous elements”, which “reduce clarity and consistency”, and it has lacked “a clear long-term strategy”.

The OECD review finds “a large variety of practices between schools and classrooms” and says that this could be “threatening the aspirations for equity in students’ experiences and outcomes”.

Rapid response: SQA to be replaced, education secretary reveals in response to OECD report

Background: What is Curriculum for Excellence?

Exclusive interview: Last week’s Tess interview with Shirley-Anne Somerville

Flashback to 2020: 17 key findings from Priestley review of SQA results fiasco

On the plus side of Pisa: Scottish pupils among top performers in new Pisa test

Opinion: Is it time for Curriculum for Excellence 2.0?

Overall, the OECD finds a “variable picture” in the performance of the Scottish education system, noting that “while Pisa [Programme for International Student Assessment] results had declined between 2009 and 2015...they improved in reading and remained stable in mathematics and science between 2015 and 2018”.

The report adds that “Scottish students have been among the top performers in global competences, which measure their capacity to interpret world views, to engage effectively in interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective wellbeing and sustainable development”, and there was “an increase to 95 per cent in the positive destinations of those leaving schools in 2019”.

The review - commissioned by the Scottish government after MSPs ordered an urgent investigation to address “key weaknesses” in the Scottish education system - highlights the “misalignment between CfE’s aspirations and the qualification system” in the senior phase of secondary.

It concludes that CfE is working better for learners “aged 3 to 15 years, especially in primary schools, than for learners aged 15 to 18” - with the exception of students studying for Advanced Highers, where there appears to be a better fit with CfE.

The review also says that assessment approaches in the senior phase should be “fully aligned to match CfE ambitions” - it suggests this could include more continuous teacher assessment, externally marked projects and extended essays, and oral and practical presentations.

? Just released! Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future ?????????

Read the report ? https://t.co/RC2tKQ43Ns pic.twitter.com/lpwZgRGjoI

- OECD Education (@OECDEduSkills) June 21, 2021

The review - which was conducted entirely online as a result of the coronavirus pandemic - says that CfE “implementation has been accomplished in primary and lower-secondary”.

However, it warns that the high number of different classes taken in S1-3 - up to 17 in some schools - might result “in fragmentation and superficiality”, and describes this as a risk of the “mile-wide, inch-deep” curriculum happening in S1-S3”.

The report also identifies a problem around how the importance of knowledge is viewed in Scottish education. It notes the “unclear position of knowledge in the four [CfE] capacities” and says that “clarifying the role of knowledge in the vision of CfE is the first step to strengthen the coherence of CfE”.

The report states: “Education is a source of pride in Scotland, which shows in the broad commitment to CfE and educational excellence for all. It has been granted great importance in the political debate to a degree that would be the envy of many a system.”

However, the report finds that Scottish education has become too politicised, causing education policy to be overly “reactive” when there should be more focus on long-term plans. It says education “has been granted great importance in the political debate” but “this importance has sometimes translated into a busy system at risk of policy and institutional overload”.

The report praises Scottish teachers, saying that they are “well educated and respected professionals” and calls for them to be given “additional dedicated and ring-fenced time...for curriculum planning, for monitoring of student achievement and in support of moderation of assessment outcomes”.

It says: “A tension exists between Scotland’s comparatively high rate of teachers’ class contact time and the expectations for teachers to lead and plan curricula locally.”

The OECD finds a need to “simplify policies and institutions for clarity and coherence”. It is also highly critical of how the aims of CfE have been communicated, finding an approach to public and professional messaging which “remains confused [and] can hinder implementation by leaving CfE open to wide interpretations and overwhelm schools, learners and parents”.

The report recommends splitting the dual functions of Education Scotland - which is responsible for inspection and curriculum development - saying that Scotland should consider creating “a specialist standalone agency” responsible for the curriculum and that such an agency could also be responsible for assessment.

When it comes to the inspectorate, it recommends “refreshing the remit of an inspectorate of education regarding CfE”.

The education secretary had previously committed to reform Education Scotland and the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), and said last week that this would be fundamental and not just an exercise in rebranding.

The OECD review states: “Despite attempts to reform qualifications, misalignment between CfE’s aspirations and the qualification system became a barrier to CfE’s implementation in secondary education.”

It says there is a “gap” between the goals of the curriculum and the qualifications pupils work towards in the senior phase.

The report says the aim of the senior phase is to provide deeper learning and study for qualifications, awards and other planned activities to develop the four capacities but, in practice, the emphasis of the qualifications “seems to deviate from CfE’s broader curriculum and philosophy aims”. It finds that this “narrow focus also appears to have backwash effects on teaching practices and learning experiences in the last years of the BGE [broad general education]”.

Without addressing such issues in the senior phase, the report warns, there will be “a counterproductive influence on Broad General Education and the transition for students [to upper secondary]”.

My initial response to @OECD report into Scotland’s curriculum which concludes CfE is the right approach. After 10 years it’s natural changes are needed and @scotgov accepts all recommendations. We will now move to replace @sqanews and substantially reform @EducationScot. https://t.co/GxgbjcoDFE

- Shirley-Anne Somerville (@S_A_Somerville) June 21, 2021

The report adds: “The OECD team’s general conclusion is that the coherence between the various curriculum components, as well as the consistency between the policy intentions at large and the implemented curriculum in local contexts, is better for learners aged three to 15 years, especially in primary schools, than for learners aged 15 to 18, except for students who are preparing for Advanced Higher qualifications, which seem to continue teaching and learning practices in line with the CfE vision.”

The report says that senior phase students “reported an emphasis on rote learning and memorisation, which they described as “boring”, and had “fewer opportunities to experience more engaging, intrinsically motivating activities related to problem solving, creativity, cooperation or communication”.

However, it adds: “Interestingly, students reported that they experienced more meaningful approaches to learning in the Advanced Higher courses, which seem to better reflect the CfE vision.”

The report says that the data generated by current system monitoring and evaluation “appear limited and do not provide the evidence to fully support and inform the future development of CfE”, while the usefulness of the literacy and numeracy standardised tests - the Scottish National Standardised Assessments - that have been so controversial is “already being questioned”.

The OECD review of CfE was originally intended to be a review of the senior phase - given the broad general education which covers pupils aged three to 15 - was reviewed by the body in 2015. However, the education secretary at the time, John Swinney, was forced to extend the review after a defeat in the Scottish Parliament when he tried to block calls for a comprehensive review.

Following the 2020 Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) results debacle, the review was also extended to include the exams and assessment system. However, that part of the OECD’s work is not expected to be published until the autumn.