The Scottish government’s independent review of skills once again raises the prospect that familiar qualifications such as the Higher - which has been a staple in Scottish schools for well over 100 years - could be consigned to the history books.
In his report, published today, James Withers hits out at the “often bewildering set of different names for qualifications” in Scottish schools - as well as post-school - and calls for “clear, coherent and recognisable learning pathways through the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)”.
In a Twitter thread to coincide with the publication of the report, Mr Withers explains his thinking.
He says that “our language on qualifications is a maze of confusing terms” and he had recently “tried (and largely failed!)” to help his son with his senior secondary course choices but was “faced with a bewildering array of acronyms and terms (FA, NC, HNC, NPA, Higher, Adv Higher)” he had ended up with “a headache”.
However, Mr Withers adds: “The good news is the language fix already exists. All qualifications are plotted on a single, understandable framework. Yet, we don’t use it in how we speak of different options. In school, if a Foundation Apprenticeship = a Higher, why call it something totally different?”
A pictorial representation of the SCQF was pasted below this tweet:
As Mr Withers explains in his report, the SCQF “comprehensively maps qualifications against the various learning levels, enabling clear comparisons of each pathway”. But as he also points out, “its implementation and articulation is not widespread” and, therefore, “it fails to be the catalyst it could so clearly be in defining a common language to describe each qualification according to the level of learning being delivered”.
Mr Withers wants that to change - and he is not alone.
In March, the interim Hayward report of qualifications and assessment review suggested - although more tentatively - that all qualifications at the same SCQF level “would be subject to the same descriptor without distinguishing the type”.
So 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.
The idea is that this could help address a longstanding issue in Scottish education that academic qualifications are often perceived to be of greater value than vocational qualifications.
In his report, Mr Withers also raises this issue - that “a hugely damaging” and “completely false division” has been created between “vocational” and “academic” pathways.
He cites the example of Highers and Foundation Apprenticeships.
In theory, both qualifications have the same value according to the SCQF - both are level 6 qualifications. Mr Withers writes: “Yet, I was told by some headteachers that they are often not viewed as comparable and that there is little consistency in the way that educational institutions will treat them when assessing entry requirements for further and higher education. This was also a finding of Professor Ken Muir’s recent report. Parity of esteem, it would seem, still remains an illusion in too many cases.”
He agrees with Professor Louise Hayward - who leads the landmark qualifications assessment review and whose final report is expected this month - that “language or terminology is critical” and describes the SCQF as “a huge asset”. That the SCQF does not “form the backbone of how we talk about qualifications” is “an enormous lost opportunity”, he says.
However, when it comes to Foundation Apprenticeships (FAs), Mr Withers also calls for the “design, delivery and funding” - as well as the name of the qualification - “to mirror those for the equivalent subject-based senior-phase qualifications”.
Therefore, as opposed to Skills Development Scotland (SDS) being responsible for FAs, the report calls for the qualification to become the responsibility of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and its successor body - which Mr Withers says should oversee the “development and accreditation of all publicly funded post-school qualifications”, including “Scottish Vocational Qualifications, apprenticeship frameworks and the underpinning National Occupational Standards”.
On SDS, Mr Withers says he found “the functions of SDS appeared to be confusing for many people and organisations” and that “it was difficult to characterise or define the body’s role as it covered such a wide range of different areas of skills development”.
He recommended that SDS be “substantively reformed and recast as the national body for careers education and promotion with a focus on providing impartial advice, guidance and information to people in Scotland of all ages about careers, jobs and learning and training pathways and available support”.
The final report of the review, Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation, can be read in full here.
