« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
3 PROPOSAL 1 - NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AT ACCESS, HIGHER AND ADVANCED HIGHER WILL BE RETAINED AS POINTS OF STABILITY
Summary of background information in the consultation paper
3.1National Qualifications at Access, Higher and Advanced Higher will be retained as points of stability. Highers, in particular, will remain the 'gold standard' of the Scottish education system. The content of all National Qualifications will be updated to reflect the values, purposes and principles of Curriculum for Excellence. Some aspects of the structure of these qualifications will also be reviewed.
3.2 The current range of Access, Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications were introduced in schools and colleges as part of the Higher Still development programme in 1999/2000 and remain highly respected and well-used qualifications.
3.3 Access qualifications - which are offered at SCQF levels 1, 2 and 3 - are wholly internally assessed and provide valuable opportunities to recognise the learning of students who were previously poorly served by the qualifications system. Access 1 is designed for students who require considerable support with their learning, while Access 2 is designed for students with more moderate support needs. Access 3 is comparable with Standard Grade Foundation level. The popularity of these qualifications (particularly Access 3) is reflected in entry figures, which have shown significant growth since their introduction.
3.4 Highers - which are at level 6 in the SCQF - remain the 'gold standard' of Scottish qualifications and have a lineage dating back to 1888.
3.5 Advanced Highers - at level 7 in the SCQF - have attracted praise as providing excellent preparation for higher education or employment.
3.6 National Qualifications must change to reflect the revised curriculum. SQA will undertake a review programme, with the advice and support of key stakeholders in the education and wider community, to ensure that National Qualifications at all levels build upon the experiences and outcomes being developed for the new curriculum.
3.7 The qualifications system must operate as a cohesive framework. Decisions taken in relation to one part of the framework will impact upon other parts.
3.8 Although the changes to Access, Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications will be largely focused on content, some technical elements of their structure may well have to be reviewed in the light of decisions taken on the new qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5. This is in order to ensure good articulation and progression routes for young people. A further change may be necessary in relation to introducing compensatory awards (see Proposal 2). This consultation focuses mainly on National Qualifications and the units that make them up. However, the Scottish Government recognises that there may be consequences for those elements of SQA's portfolio of qualifications used mainly in college based provision. Any changes arising from this consultation will be taken into account in future work relating to this provision.
3.9 At all levels, the revised system of National Qualifications must ensure that young people have an effective and progressive transition from their broad general education up to the end of S3 into more specialised study for qualifications. The new qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5 (see Proposal 2) will offer effective progression routes from Access 3 and into Higher and Advanced Higher. This will help to ensure a coherent system of curriculum and qualifications.
3.10 Every young person should be able to move into the qualifications framework at a level that is appropriate to their needs. For example, vulnerable learners may focus primarily on Access qualifications in S4 and progress either laterally within an SCQF level or through other SCQF levels. The majority of young people should move into the new qualifications at SCQF level 4 or 5 in S4. Some will then be able to progress to Highers at a later point. The most able young people should be free to study for Highers from S4 (see Proposal 4).
3.11 It is imperative that the timescale for introducing revised qualifications ensures articulation and coherence between the revised curriculum and the qualifications framework, allowing young people to experience a smooth progression from curriculum areas into more specialised study for qualifications from S4 onwards.
Q1. Do you welcome the intention to update all qualifications at Access, Higher and Advanced Higher in line with Curriculum for Excellence? Please comment on any implications to be considered.
3.12 Almost all respondents (1739 out of 1807) answered this question and 199 commented on the implications. Most (76%) were in favour - although just over half of these respondents had caveats or concerns. Overall, 20% of all respondents were opposed. The opposition came almost exclusively from respondents from secondary schools and from parents and 'others' who responded to the consultation 13.
Reasons for agreement with the proposal
3.13 The most common reasons given for supporting the proposal were that:
- it is logical and necessary to update qualifications in order to implement Curriculum for Excellence
It is very important that we avoid preparation for the familiar and we seek a greater emphasis on testing the skills and capacities which are central to a Curriculum for Excellence. We recognise that the final qualifications framework should build on the work that is done on a curriculum which is designed to go from age 3 to 18. (Association of Directors of Education Scotland, consultation response)
- there is a need to modernise the curriculum
Major cultural and technical change has and is happening at an increasing rate, which is rendering Highers, Advanced Highers and all other qualifications less fit for purpose with time, so a programme of modernisation to respond to this is very welcome. (Scotland's Colleges, consultation response)
- there is a need for better articulation between levels.
3.14 Other reasons given were:
- problems with the current assessment system ( e.g. assessment driven courses, too much assessment and specific problems with NABs 14)
- a need for more emphasis and recognition of non-academic skills ( e.g. social skills, work skills and life skills)
Incorporating the principles of Curriculum for Excellence (Enabling young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, effective contributors) will lead to qualifications which are more relevant to the world of work. (Employer/Business Representative, consultation response)
- the current system is too cluttered and complicated.
Caveats and concerns from those in agreement
3.15 Just over half of those who agreed with the proposal also registered caveats and concerns. In particular, respondents felt they needed more information about Curriculum for Excellence and specific details about what the changes would be.
…clarity in relation to the curriculum ( i.e. CfE) must be achieved before there can be meaningful discussion in relation to any alterations to the national qualifications regime in Scotland. (Educational Institute of Scotland, consultation response)
3.16 There was also considerable concern about the timescale, the number of changes happening at once and the impact on workload and teaching time.
3.17 Other caveats were about the need to:
- retain specific features of these qualifications (rigorous testing, the academic content and external elements were all mentioned)
- ensure articulation between levels
- keep changes to a minimum because the present system works well and is already in line with Curriculum for Excellence
- provide adequate resources and CPD to implement the changes
- engage in more consultation with stakeholders, especially teachers.
Reasons for disagreement with the proposal
3.18 There were four main reasons given by those who disagreed with the proposal:
- Curriculum for Excellence is vague, incoherent, or flawed
The CfE proposals are ill thought out and lack the detail needed to devise an examination system. (Individual, consultation response)
- more information is needed about the changes
- there has been too much change already
- there is no need for change because the present system works well.
Implications
3.19 Those suggesting implications to be considered mainly commented on the resourcing requirements. Respondents mentioned costs in general and, more specifically, staffing, CPD and the need for centrally produced materials.
3.20 Other implications mentioned were:
- the possibility that entrance requirements to HE and FE may alter as a result of the changes to the qualifications
- the need to review the assessment methodology as well as the course content (including the number of NABs and the length of NABs).
« Previous | Contents | Next »