The Higher qualification is “the cornerstone of Scottish secondary school education” and “a cultural icon” that has been around in some form since the late 19th century. So wrote the University of Edinburgh’s Professor Lindsay Paterson in a book published in 2000, in the aftermath of that year’s exams debacle. More recently, first minister Nicola Sturgeon has been known to refer to the acquiring of five Highers as the “gold standard” of Scottish education.
However, the days of a qualification going by that name could be numbered - as could other familiar names in the firmament of Scottish education, including Advanced Higher, Nationals and National Progression Awards. They could all disappear from the lexicon of contemporary Scottish learning if a proposal put forward in Professor Louise Hayward’s Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment is taken forward.
The proposal - contained in the review group’s interim report published on Friday - is one of a number of options being weighed up and consulted upon. Other proposals include significantly reducing external assessment and ending the practice of senior students sitting high-stakes exams at the end of S4, S5 and S6. The group also makes the case for introducing a school leaver’s certificate that would recognise a broader range of achievements.
When it comes to the way qualifications are labelled, and potentially getting rid of the Higher brand, it is seen as a way to address a longstanding issue in Scottish education: the perception that so-called academic qualifications are of greater value than vocational qualifications.
The review group says that when it comes to achieving parity of esteem, “language is an important element” and can play a part in “undermining” the value of vocational qualifications.
The interim report also says that terms such as “other qualifications and awards”, “wider achievement” and “vocational” can suggest “that these are somehow ‘other’ or are for those who are unlikely to achieve well at [national qualifications]”.
The review group is, therefore, suggesting that all qualifications at the same Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) level “would be subject to the same descriptor without distinguishing the type”.
One possibility, then, is that there would be no more Nationals, Highers, Advanced Highers, National Progression Awards or National Certificates. Instead, schools, teachers and students would talk about the subject being studied and the level it is being studied at based on the SCQF, which has 12 levels of difficulty, with Higher being equivalent to SCQF level 6.
Therefore, instead of talking about studying Higher English, students would refer to studying English at SCQF level 6; and instead of studying for a National Progression Award in professional cookery at SCQF level 6, they would take professional cookery at level 6.
However, redefining qualifications by their SCQF level is just one option; while there is consensus that the devaluing of vocational qualifications is an issue that needs solving, the same cannot be said of how it should be done.
Another way to better integrate academic and vocational qualifications could be to retain familiar and highly regarded names, such as “Higher”, but expand them to encompass all qualifications at the same level. A further option could be to create an entirely new set of terms to describe different school qualifications.
Today, Professor Hayward told Tes Scotland: “The analysis of our phase-two consultation made clear a desire to have a better integration of academic and professional and technical qualifications. That has been an aspiration for decades.
“The question is how it might be done. In this phase of the consultation, we are exploring whether changing the language to bring all qualifications under one set of labels might be helpful in beginning to break down the traditional divide.”
Review group member and secondary headteacher, Peter Bain, who is vice-president of School Leaders Scotland and chair of the BOCSH group of headteachers, said that there were two views on the subject: some believe that Highers are “an internationally renowned brand and should be kept”; others making the case that the Higher name is “artificially inflating the importance of some subjects over others”.
He said moving to a system that focuses on levels would get rid of “the preconception that Highers must be better”. This preconception, he added, can affect the curricular offer in schools as well as the choices that students make.
“For example, a learner may be better placed to do an SCQF level 6 course that would help them to get a job or would better prepare them for the first year at university; but they choose random Highers just because of the preconception that Highers must be better,” Mr Bain said.
“In short they’re taking courses by name rather than content.
“By only having one levelling descriptor model, we could avoid learners making choices for all the wrong reasons.”
Mr Bain added that - although Highers have been around for a long time - society had proven itself able to adapt to new qualifications and had moved from O Grades to Standard Grades and then, almost a decade ago, to Nationals.
The reasoning behind the proposal is set out in full in the briefing paper published by the review group - at the same time as the interim report - on Friday.
On the integration of vocational and academic qualifications, it says: “We have heard a great deal of commentary on the importance of ensuring there is parity of esteem between what are known as academic and professional and technical subjects or programmes of study. Language is an important element of this narrative. Terms such as ‘other qualifications and awards’, ‘wider achievement’ and even the term ‘vocational’ suggest (to some) that these are somehow ‘other’ or are for those who are unlikely to achieve well at [national qualifications] and this can play a part in undermining their value.”
The paper adds: “Within the proposed model, we would expect that all qualifications at the same SCQF level would be subject to the same descriptor without distinguishing the type and believe this would be a positive step in acknowledging the value of all forms of learning undertaken as part of the senior phase and beyond.”
Now, the review group is looking for feedback on its proposals.
One of nine questions posed by the review group in this final phase of consultation is: “To promote parity of esteem across all qualifications, academic or technical and professional, should all qualifications at a particular SCQF level have the same name?”
The consultation will run until Friday 7 April, with the review group’s final report going to education secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville at the end of May.
*For more information on how to take part in the Hayward review of qualifications and assessment before consultation ends on 7 April, read this Tes Scotland summary.
