The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) has hit back at criticism that its courses in senior secondary are not fit for purpose.
It has published research that claims that “practical considerations” such as class sizes, resources and timetabling are preventing Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) from being realised in upper secondary school.
The review of the implementation of CfE by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2021 found - with the exception of the Advanced Higher - that there was “misalignment between CfE’s aspirations and the qualification system”.
The report led to the overhaul of assessment and qualifications that is currently underway in Scotland, as well as setting in motion the reform of key education bodies, including the SQA.
However, new research commissioned by the SQA and published on its website concludes that, rather than the SQA courses being at fault, it is the way they are being delivered in Scottish schools that is leading to key features of CfE not being realised.
The SQA research says issues such as timetabling, class sizes and resources are leading to “much of the personalisation and choice that is present within the courses being abandoned in favour of prescription, as a ‘safeguard’ to lead to successful outcomes”.
SQA research into Curriculum for Excellence
The report states: “Teachers understand the opportunities available within national courses to realise the principles for curriculum design (as evidenced at Advanced Higher) but practical considerations may be impinging on these opportunities at National 5 and Higher. Consequently, the extent to which the vision of CfE can be realised in practice is largely determined by approaches to learning and teaching and structural arrangements for delivery.”
The research says the intentions of CfE were present in the courses it looked at in depth - National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher English, geography and maths - and that any future reform of the senior phase will need “to go beyond qualification design alone and include cultural, structural and systematic challenges facing the wider education system as a whole”.
The report says: “Findings indicate that, within the sample of national courses, there are opportunities to realise all of the appropriate principles for curriculum design at all [Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework] levels, to varying degrees. Therefore, the research suggests that the intentions of CfE have been translated into National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher English, geography and mathematics.”
The SQA told Tes Scotland that the research indicated “a stronger degree of alignment than suggested by OECD’s report”, which called for assessment approaches in the senior phase to be “fully aligned to match CfE ambitions”.
The OECD report was critical of the focus on “traditional” exams and found that senior-phase students “reported an emphasis on rote learning and memorisation”. It suggested that Scotland should embrace assessment approaches that better align with 21st-century curricula, including online exams, as well as making more use of continuous assessment and oral presentations and practicals “as a way to broaden the assessment formats”.
However, the SQA research criticises the OECD’s work for relying “heavily on stakeholders’ perceptions” and “failing to fully consider other evidence such as national course specifications, assessments, candidate scripts and coursework submissions”.
The research report says the body decided to undertake its own research to “build on the OECD’s perception-based findings” and analyse “the relationship between the intentions of CfE and the approach taken to the design of National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher courses”.
The research involved experts analysing the key features of CfE, and then panels of subject specialists rating the extent to which those features were present in the overall course design for their subject, as well as other areas such as course specifications, question papers, coursework tasks and candidate scripts and coursework submissions.
They found that the extent to which the different CfE features were present depended on the subject. For example, problem solving was less apparent in English, and personalisation was found to be less of a feature in maths. However, overall, the report concluded that the courses were fit for purpose.
Like the OECD review, the SQA research found that Advanced Higher courses were “better ‘aligned’ with the intentions of CfE than courses at National 5 and Higher”.
However, the SQA research found that the Advanced Higher is constructed in a similar way to National 5 and Higher, in that there is usually “a combination of question paper and coursework component”.
It suggests, therefore, that Advanced Higher is not a better course, but that it is taught differently, often in smaller classes where a “tutorial approach” is taken.
The SQA report also highlights that students undertake fewer Advanced Highers, “allowing them the opportunity to think more deeply about what they are learning”, and that these learners are more mature and, therefore, more able to work independently.
On the other hand, it says that students at National 5 and Higher “do not always have the maturity to self-manage their learning”, that classes are “tightly controlled by the teacher”, and that class sizes at National 5 and Higher “tend to be greater in size than at Advanced Higher, which means that resources are often stretched”.
The report states: “What seems to differentiate Advanced Higher from National 5 and Higher is a combination of academic experience and maturity that can support self-managed learning. Self-management of learning can in turn reduce the need for teacher contact time. This provides learners with more space to explore their subject on their own, and more time for teachers to expand learners’ knowledge, skills and understanding through different approaches to learning, teaching and formative assessment.”
The SQA told Tes Scotland that the research - which was published quietly online in March and not the subject of a press release - had been shared with Professor Ken Muir, who recently published his report on the reform of the SQA and Education Scotland, and also with Professor Louise Hayward, who is undertaking the review of assessment and qualifications.
An SQA spokesperson said: “As Scotland’s national awarding body, it is essential that we undertake research to provide the evidence base on which we can make improvements for learners. The report published by SQA in March this year builds on the OECD’s 2021 report and examines in detail the extent of alignment between the intentions of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence and national courses.
“To help us understand the issues in more detail, and to inform what we could and should do in response, the research drew on the expertise of classroom teachers, lecturers and education researchers. The research findings contribute to the important, system-wide discussion and evidence base around the reform of senior-phase qualifications and assessments.”
The full SQA research report can be accessed here.
