The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 PROPOSAL 2 - A NEW QUALIFICATION WILL REPLACE THE PRESENT STANDARD GRADE GENERAL AND CREDIT LEVELS AND INTERMEDIATE 1 AND 2 ( SCQF 4 AND SCQF 5) QUALIFICATIONS

Summary of background information in the consultation paper

4.1 The current system of National Qualifications is successful in many ways. However, there is evidence that some elements of the system are not easy to understand or use. There are particular issues around National Qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5 (Standard Grade Credit and General/Intermediate 1 and 2). Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications were intended originally for different year groups and they have different structures and purposes. However, some complexity and blurring of purposes has arisen over the years.

4.2 The consultation therefore proposed the development of a new qualification at SCQF levels 4 and 5 to replace Standard Grade at Credit and General levels and Intermediate 1 and 2. The new qualification will reflect the best features of Standard Grade and Intermediate. Standard Grade Foundation level will be removed and Access 3 will provide certification at SCQF level 3.

4.3 Research with stakeholder groups undertaken prior to the consultation identified the following as the best features of Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications:

• the 'inclusive' approach to certification contained in Standard Grade; and
• the 'unit based' structure of Intermediate qualifications.

4.4 In addition, stakeholders commented that assessment must be closely integrated with learning and teaching approaches.

4.5 The consultation proposed the following features of the new qualification:

• it will cover two levels - SCQF 4 and 5 - and be available in a wide range of subjects;
• it will have a unit based structure;
• the notional course duration will be similar to the existing arrangements for Intermediate qualifications;
• external examinations will be retained at all levels where they are currently used for certification;
• the course award will reflect performance both in units and in the external examination; and
• the course award will be graded A-D (A-C is a pass and D a 'near miss', as in present Intermediate courses.)

4.6 The consultation also requested views on the following proposals:

• The units of the new qualification would be assessed internally and moderated externally. This would reflect current practice in National Qualifications. The consultation proposed that one way to improve the credibility of units would be to design unit assessments that allow young people to demonstrate the full range of learning. These assessments could be marked and graded on a scale A-C to accredit successful performance. Assigning grades to units in this way would enable candidates to demonstrate a range of ability levels and help them prepare for the final external assessment. The consultation made a further separate proposal that unit assessments designed in this way could contribute to the overall course award.
• Compensatory arrangements should be introduced so that young people failing an examination have their learning towards that qualification recognised formally in some way. To provide consistency, compensatory awards would also be introduced for Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications.
• The consultation proposed that the new qualification should be named General ( SCQF 4) and Advanced General ( SCQF 5) but sought views on this and requested other suggestions.

Q2. Early consultation has identified the 'best' features of Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications as:

• the 'inclusive' approach to certification contained in Standard Grade; and
• the 'unit based' structure of Intermediate qualifications.

Are there any other features in the present Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications which should be included in the new qualification at SCQF levels 4 and 5?

4.7 Just over half of respondents (1031 out of 1807) suggested features which they thought should be included in the new qualification. Most Local Authorities made suggestions. Fewer parents and employers/business representatives did so though the desire for an inclusive system came through strongly in the qualitative research with parents.

4.8 A number of respondents did not identify other features for inclusion but made other comments - including some who disagreed that a unit-based structure was desirable.

4.9 Some respondents felt that Standard Grades were working well and should be retained.

4.10 There were some comments about the lack of a consultation question on whether Standard Grades and Intermediates should be replaced.

4.11 The features of the present Standard Grade and Intermediate qualifications which respondents valued and thought should be included in the new qualifications are discussed below.

4.12 Progression between levels - and articulation with Highers in particular - was a key concern. It was raised by all sub-groups in the consultation and by teachers and pupils in the qualitative research. In some subjects, the content and structure of the Intermediate courses were felt to provide the best basis for progression while in other subjects the Standard Grade courses were preferred. One of the most common suggestions therefore was to retain the content of whichever course provided the best preparation for future qualifications.

4.13 A popular feature of Standard Grades for some was the option of presentation at two levels ( e.g. Foundation with General or General with Credit). This was felt to maximise pupils' chances of a higher level award while providing a safety net. Local authorities, in particular, made this point.

…you're going to get more presented at a lower level, because you can't take the risk. If they're on that borderline, who's going to take that risk? That's the danger. (Teacher, qualitative research)

One of the most successful features of Standard Grade is the fact that pupils are presented for two papers, which although administratively clumsy, provides both an opportunity for success and a safety net for failure. (School Leaders Scotland, consultation response)

4.14 The issue of presentation at two levels was closely linked with concerns about inclusiveness. Respondents agreed that the 'inclusive' approach to certification was important and a number felt that the Foundation level at Standard Grade (or an equivalent) should therefore be retained.

4.15 For a number of reasons, some respondents did not feel that the alternative of Access 3 was as inclusive:

• it would not be seen as the 'same' qualification as General/Advanced General (in the way that Foundation and General Standard Grades are seen as different levels of the same qualification)
• if Access 3 is timetabled and taught separately, it would be less easy for pupils to move between levels. The current flexibility to move between levels 3 and 4 gives some pupils the opportunity to exceed initial expectations and achieve at the higher level
  We fear that most schools would be forced into a situation where the Access 3 class had to be timetabled separately, since there is nothing said to reassure us that the courses for the new qualification will be constructed in such a way that the level 4 courses can be taught alongside Access 3 courses. Nothing is said about pupils' likely ability to move between levels, particularly between levels 3 and 4. (Inverclyde Council, consultation response)

• the external exam at Foundation level was seen to provide external credibility.

4.16 The importance of retaining external examinations, in order to ensure consistency and credibility, was another of the more frequent comments.

4.17 At the same time, many respondents valued the internal and continuous assessment of practical work, course work and units. This was a feature mentioned by several local authorities in particular.

4.18 Related to this was a desire to retain the practical and investigative aspects of courses. For example, there were specific mentions of the investigative element of Standard Grade Religious Studies, the practical activities in Intermediate 1 and 2 Chemistry, the applications led elements of several Standard Grade science courses and the practical abilities project in Standard Grade Business Management.

4.19 Respondents also noted other specific features of current courses that they felt should be included. The assessed talk and the folio in Standard Grade English were the most frequently mentioned.

4.20 The broad overview provided by the wide range of topics covered in courses at these levels was seen as a positive feature. The opportunity to study a wide range of subjects was also mentioned by a few respondents and there was concern that there should not be a reduction in the total number of courses that pupils might study at these levels.

Q3. One of the proposals is to grade units. Do you agree that units should be graded A-C rather than pass/fail?

4.21 Almost all (1721 out of 1807) respondents answered this question. Just over half (51%) of all respondents agreed with the proposal to grade units A to C while 43% disagreed.

4.22 Parents and employers were more likely than other groups to agree with the proposal. In contrast, around three-quarters of respondents from colleges disagreed.

4.23 Pupils and college students who took part in the qualitative research were generally supportive of grading.

4.24 Views were more evenly split among the rest of the subgroups, with 52% of secondary schools in favour.

Reasons for agreement with the proposal

4.25 The most common reasons given for agreeing with the proposal to grade units related to perceived benefits for pupils. It was felt that grading would increase the value of units and would give recognition for those who did well; this would motivate pupils to work harder.

It is quite disheartening for a pupil when they have put an immense amount of effort into a piece of work and then get the same result as the person who did just enough. Pass/fail develops an attitude of pupils just having to meet minimum standards. (Teacher, consultation response 029)

4.26 Respondents also acknowledged that grades would provide pupils with useful feedback. It was felt that the present pass or fail system gave pupils a false sense of security because passing units did not always translate into success in the final exam. If, however, grades were attached to units, respondents felt that this would enable pupils to judge their progress and set realistic targets for the final exam. It would also enable them to identify their strengths as well as areas they need to improve on.

I think graded would be better because then you have an indication of how you are doing, because you might be passing the NABS or whatever and think, okay I'm doing fine and then hit the exam and be like, oh. (Pupil, qualitative research)

It means it gives you a better idea of when you're coming to revision as to how much extra you are going to put in and where, because if you're just told pass or fail… it could just be a scrape. (College student, qualitative research)

4.27 Furthermore, some respondents felt that graded units would be more useful than the current 'pass' when it comes to appeals, by providing them with better evidence.

4.28 Another reason given by those in favour was that grade feedback would be useful for teachers as it would allow them to target support. A number of respondents also felt that grades could aid teachers when determining the correct level of study for a pupil or when they are providing estimate grades to the Scottish Qualifications Authority ( SQA).

4.29 Graded units were also perceived to be useful for providing employers, colleges and universities with a better and more meaningful indication of a pupil's achievements.

Evidence of grading within units will also provide universities with a clear pattern of achievement across a range of qualifications. This may provide important evidence for those courses which are under pressure and which must select between very able candidates. (Universities Scotland, consultation response)

CBI Scotland believes that a grading system of A-C is preferable to pass/fail. This will allow employers to better ascertain the performance of any prospective employee. ( CBI Scotland, consultation response)

Caveats and concerns for agreement with the proposal

4.30 A typical caveat expressed by those who agreed with the proposal was that, to ensure consistency, units would need to be rewritten to address the fact that they are currently set at level C (and thus it is not possible to achieve an A). It was also noted that some schools currently administer an additional A/B unit test; graded units would therefore remove the need for this additional layer of assessment.

4.31 Other caveats expressed were:

• units should only be graded if the grades are then used in conjunction with the exam mark to calculate the overall award grade
• more resources and time would have to be devoted to grading.

This is a reasonably well run school…but every single teacher in this school is on the minimum free time just now and many of them are sitting in classes with either a maximum of 20 or a maximum of 30. Now to then say to people, you have got to take on more responsibility for correction, then you've either got to provide more teachers, or you've got to provide more free time, some manner of means. (Teacher, qualitative research)

4.32 Other concerns expressed by these respondents mainly related to issues with the practicality of grading units which are discussed below.

Reasons for disagreement with the proposal

4.33 The main reasons for disagreement related to practical issues - with workload implications being the most common one. This issue was widely raised by teachers and college lecturers who felt it would increase the time spent on marking. Some parents questioned whether marking would be fair given the time pressures faced by teachers.

Time is so precious for teachers in marking day to day pieces of work that having to grade units would use up more valuable time, which we sadly don't have. (Teacher, consultation response)

4.34 Other issues related to the practicality of grading units included:

• problems with developing a standardised approach to grading potentially leading to inconsistencies between subjects and between different schools/colleges
• a system of external moderation would have to be put in place to ensure consistency and credibility; this will again lead to an increase in workload as well as costs.

4.35 Respondents who opposed grading were also concerned about the increased pressure this will put on teachers and pupils to achieve high grades. It was noted that this could potentially lead to over-assessment and to a culture of teaching or learning to the test at the expense of genuine learning and support. A few stated that such effects are contrary to the principles of Curriculum for Excellence.

No that's kind of annoying every like month you're having to work for an A, work for an A and work for an A. (Pupil, qualitative research)

Grading all units in a qualification will not meet the CfE's overall aim of reducing assessment burden but it is likely to increase it for the majority. (Scotland's Colleges, consultation response)

4.36 Moreover it was noted that grades could be distorted by teachers giving inflated grades, pupils re-sitting unit assessments until they improved their grades or pupils sitting all their unit assessments at the end of a course.

If unit passes are to be graded, we foresee multiple re-sits being demanded to get as high a score as possible with consequent workload problems for staff. […] even if restrictions are to be placed on the number of re-sits, a pragmatic response might be to hold all unit tests until the end of the course to achieve as high a grade as possible - would easily overload and burnout pupils near the end of the year. (School Leaders Scotland, consultation response)

Q4. Do you want graded units to count towards the final award?

4.37 Most (1661 out of 1807) respondents provided an answer to this question. Just over half (51%) of all respondents did not want graded units to count towards the final award, whereas 40% were supportive of this.

4.38 The findings from the consultation analysis and the qualitative research indicate that respondents from secondary schools and colleges were more likely than others to disagree with the proposal.

4.39 Pupils and parents typically agreed with the proposal but some only wanted graded units to count for appeal purposes.

Reasons for agreement

4.40 A common perception among those who agreed was that the proposed system - graded units counting towards the final award - was fairer because it takes into account pupils' achievements throughout a course. This was seen to be particularly beneficial for pupils who do not perform well under exam conditions or just happen to have a 'bad day' on the day of the exam.

Yes because I do better in class than I do in exams. You're more nervous in the exams. (Pupil, qualitative research)

That would be useful, because then you can get some of it out of the way. Because right now it is 100% on the exam. You might have a bad day. (Pupil, qualitative research)

4.41 Others agreed because they felt that there is no point in grading at all if grades are not taken into account when determining the final award.

I think it would be pretty pointless if they were doing units and getting graded throughout the year if they didn't count. (Parent, qualitative research)

4.42 Consistent with the arguments in favour of grading units (Question 3), respondents believed that pupils would take units more seriously under the proposed system. Thus they would be motivated to work harder and more consistently throughout the year as opposed to 'cramming' before the exam.

I think it would maintain pupil performance throughout the year, rather than cramming into the final exam, you know kids scraping past the entire year then cramming like crazy before May. (Teacher, qualitative research.

Caveats for agreement

4.43 Although parents and pupils in the qualitative research were mostly supportive of the proposal, a number disapproved of penalising pupils who did very well in the final exam but not so well in the units. These respondents felt that pupils who achieve a high grade at the final exam have 'earned it' therefore should be awarded it and not be downgraded because of their poor performance during the units.

But then this whole thing is about children then you shouldn't take the marks off them if they've done well in the exam and they didn't do quite so well throughout the year, because it could have been circumstances. (Parent, qualitative research)

4.44 Parents and pupils tended to conclude that the system should enable pupils to achieve the best grade possible. In such a system, whether unit grades counted would depend on whether that would be to the individual pupil's advantage. If a pupil had done very well in the exam but not so well in the units, the unit grades would not count. If a pupil had done better in the units than the exam, they would count.

It would be good if you could have a fall back, but if you wanted to stick with the marks you got in your final exam then you could. (Pupil, qualitative research)

4.45 Other caveats expressed by some, mainly by respondents from secondary schools, were:

• graded units should only be used for appeal purposes
• measures such as external moderation or external grading of units will need to be put in place to ensure that the system is fair and credible
• graded units should only constitute a small percentage of the final award.

Reasons for disagreement

4.46 Those who opposed the proposal were concerned about the potential negative implications it may have for pupils. These respondents felt that instead of motivating pupils it would actually demotivate them - pupils who perform very well throughout the year would not study as hard towards the final exam because they know they are going to pass well. In contrast, pupils who achieve low scores for units would not bother either as their chances of obtaining a higher grade are diminished.

… people would think if they had three As for their NABS they wouldn't need to bother doing very much. (Teacher, qualitative research)

[…] other ones would be completely demoralised, having two Ds in a row, thinking I'm never going to make this. (College lecturer, qualitative research)

4.47 Another problem pointed out was that pupils tend to do less well at the beginning of a course because it takes time to develop understanding and skills. Also pupils often lack maturity at the start to deal with the course material. Taking early units into account would tend to reduce the overall grade and would not reflect the final level achieved by pupils.

When they first start a course, the level of understanding might not be as good. We hope, by the end of the course they'll have deeper level of understanding. Therefore if they did grade, you'll probably find the earlier ones might be a lower grade and the later ones might be a higher grade, because they can see the linkages and might be able to understand it more. So they build up their skills plus the maturity with age as well. (College lecturer, qualitative research)

4.48 A number of respondents also felt that the proposal would disadvantage pupils who receive less support at home.

Private tutors would be employed by those who could afford it to ensure A grades in the units giving more advantages to students who come from already advantaged backgrounds. (Teacher, consultation response)

4.49 The credibility of internal assessment was a further concern expressed by respondents who disagreed with the proposal. Similar to arguments made against grading units (Question 3), teachers and college lecturers in particular felt that internal assessment is open to abuse by allowing pupils to re-sit units to improve their grades and pupils submitting work that it is not their own.

Internal assessment is open to abuse in unscrupulous centres […] where every student in some centres copied the results from the board. Unscrupulous tutors have also been "teaching the NABS" and this has resulted in some students achieving almost full marks in NABS and achieving 10% in an unseen prelim. (Teacher, consultation response)

4.50 Moreover, it was noted that, by having graded units counting towards the final award, this would greatly increase pressure on teachers to allow pupils to resit unit assessments to improve their grades.

We already have pressure on us when the assessments are assessed internally as part of the final grade, things like graphic communications. Where that happens, parents want this done again and again, putting pressure on staff to re-assess and re-assess. If that was to happen across the board, it would be a very, very great pressure on teachers in school. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

4.51 Less commonly cited reasons related to practical issues. Once again, these were broadly consistent with the reasons given by respondents who disagreed with the proposal to grade units (Question 3) and included a concern that existing issues associated with the administration of NABS ( e.g. the need to co-ordinate delivery) could be exacerbated.

Q5. Which option for introducing compensatory arrangements would you most support? Please select one option or suggest an alternative.

Option A Extend the range of grading in course awards to grade E.
Option B Recognise unit passes only.
Option C Compensatory award at the level of the course studied with nograde awarded.
Option D Compensatory grade 'C' award at the level of course below that studied.
Option E Compensatory grade 'A' award at the level of course below that studied.

4.52 Almost all (1645 out of 1807) respondents answered this question. Overall, option B was the most popular option: 47% of all respondents selected option B, 15% selected option A, 10% selected option D, 9% selected option C and 5% selected option E.

4.53 Around half of respondents from secondary schools, universities and local authorities and three quarters of respondents from colleges selected option B. A slightly smaller proportion of parents and employers/business representatives selected this option but it was still their most popular choice. These two groups also had substantial proportions in support of option A. Employers who took part in the qualitative research preferred option B although option A was also popular. However, there was also a feeling that any compensatory award would be unsatisfactory for employers' purposes. It was thought that although pupils should be rewarded for hard work, in practice, compensatory awards indicate that a pupil has failed a course and would be treated as such in recruitment.

4.54 Pupils who took part in the qualitative research typically supported option B although opinion was varied. A few felt that option E was the best. However, other pupils held the view that E was the worst option.

Support for compensatory awards in principle

4.55 Respondents generally felt that there should be some kind of compensatory arrangement in place for pupils who have passed their unit assessments throughout the course but failed the final exam. The main reasons cited were:

• that they recognise the hard work pupils have carried out during the year
• that they maintain the idea of certification for all, ensuring that very few pupils leave with no qualifications.

Disagreement with compensatory arrangements in principle

4.56 Some respondents disagreed with the principle of compensatory awards. The main issues that arose in opposition to the idea of a compensatory arrangement were:

• that pupils need to be allowed to fail so they are aware it is possible, preparing them for the real world and how to deal with failure
  We need young people, and older people, to understand that it is possible to fail; to be resilient about failure so that they try again or in another direction; to be positively aware that we cannot all be competent physicists, cooks, engineers, novelists or footballers; to make the right choices. (Teacher, consultation response)

• that even if pupils are given compensatory awards, a 'fail is still a fail' and will not be considered good enough for recruitment and course entrance requirements. This was a view held by employers and universities in particular.
  To be perfectly honest I think it's pretty worthless in so much that most employers will look at 'A' to 'C' as being a pass. (Employer, qualitative research)

Option A (selected by 15% of all respondents) - Extend the range of grading in course awards to grade E

Reasons for selecting option A

4.57 The main reasons given for agreeing with option A were:

• that it recognises a pupil's achievement and hard work
  ['D' and 'E' grades] what it does is it gives pupils something to show for the years they've been studying. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

• that it is clear cut and simple for people to understand, especially employers
  Well if it's something you want employers to understand they've got to avoid over complicating it and if you see their gradings 'A' to 'E', then for most people that's probably relatively straightforward (Employer, qualitative research)
  I would say option A is more clear cut for ourselves as employers. (Employer, qualitative research)

Caveats for agreement with option A

4.58 One of the main caveats to this option was that many respondents would like to see option A offered alongside option B - so a grade is given but the units that have been passed are also listed.

4.59 Another issue that arose was that option A was often the default choice for respondents. It was seen by some as the least bad choice rather than being an option that was actively supported.

Objections to option A

4.60 The main concerns raised about option A were:

• the 'D' and particularly the 'E' grade will have no currency with employers, universities or colleges and will be seen as a fail
  It doesn't mean anything. With loads of 'E' grades, you can't go off to university, you can't go off and do anything with it and I mean a potential employer will look at a 'D' already and will know it's a fail. It means you've done the units and you've done your best, but it's still a fail so why do we need an 'E'? (College Student, qualitative research)

• there was a feeling from some respondents that a pupil might prefer to have no grade shown on their certificate rather than a grade as low as an 'E'.
  A grade E is rubbish - I have a Grade E at O Level Biology and I don't tell a soul! It's embarrassing and I would rather not mention my ''failure''. If I see it like that, so will others. (Teacher, consultation response)

• respondents raised the concern that this option would result in the 'certification of failure' rather than celebrating success
  ['E' grade] it's a certificate of failure rather than a certificate of success and one of the advantages of the current certification is that it is weighted towards successful courses that are recorded, rather than excessive failure. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

4.61 It was clear from the qualitative research that, although some employers felt that in principle option A was easy to understand, in practice it holds little use for recruitment purposes. This indicates that pupils' and secondary schools respondents' concerns over the value of such an award are well founded.

How useful is the 'E' person to me, what has he done in all of that course work to end up being an 'E'? Has he only just scraped by his continual assessment and made a poor hash of the exam? (Employer, qualitative research)

Caveats for opposition to option A

4.62 Although many respondents felt that the 'E' grade was meaningless and would have no external currency, there was greater support for retaining the near miss 'D' grade in line with current procedures.

4.63 One view from secondary school respondents was that gaining a 'D' grade shows that pupils have made an effort to pass the exam and have worked hard. It was not considered to be simply an award for course completion in the same way that an 'E' grade was.

But at least if they've got a 'D' they haven't just written their name on the paper, they've actually made an attempt. I think that should be reflected. (Teacher, qualitative research)

Option B (selected by 47% of all respondents) - Recognise unit passes only

Reasons for selecting Option B

4.64 Option B was by far the most popular option overall. The main reasons given for selecting option B were that:

• it recognises the hard work that pupils have put in throughout the whole course
  I do think that they should be rewarded for their hard work in achieving unit grades. (Teacher, consultation response)

• it gives credit for achievements reached at the level studied (unlike options D and E) and for this reason was thought to be the fairest and most transparent option
  Option B is our preferred option as it reflects actual achievement. We are strongly opposed to Options D and E since they give an award where none is merited. (Secondary school department, consultation response)
  Yes, what have they actually achieved not what's been fudged potentially behind the scenes to give them something. (Employer, qualitative research)

Caveats and concerns from those in agreement with option B

4.65 Although option B was the most popular option, a few respondents had some reservations about this choice. The main caveats from those who, overall, supported option B were:

• as previously stated, that it should be given in combination with another award such as extending the grading to a 'D' or 'E' (option A)
• that units should be graded as this would provide a better picture of a pupil's achievement, making units more meaningful to both pupils and external users such as employers. This issue is discussed in more detail in the section on Q3.

4.66 Pupils and teachers in the qualitative research were typically in favour of grading units if they were to be used as a compensatory arrangement. Some pupils felt that grading units would give a better indication of the level a student was working at before the final exam.

I think it would be good if they were graded because I think it gives an indication as to where that pupil has been for the duration of the course and perhaps if there were circumstances surrounding the reason why they didn't pass the exam (Teacher, qualitative research)

4.67 However, some headteachers felt that this would be too complicated to be of practical use to employers.

I think trying to differentiate really between pupils capability in an area based on graded units without an overall final award I don't think would be helpful. I think everybody would find that incredibly complicated. Is unit one easier, harder, than unit three? (Headteacher, qualitative research)

4.68 Other concerns mirrored the reasons given below by those who opposed option B.

Objections to option B

4.69 The most common reason given for opposing option B, which emerged mainly from the qualitative research but was also raised by respondents to the consultation, was that units would have no meaning or value beyond the course itself. This was a concern for teachers, pupils and employers. Some employers suggested that they would need to know more about the content of units to ascertain if the skill and knowledge pupils gain from these would have any use in the workplace.

I am not convinced from anything that I've seen in the proposals or my previous understanding about the Higher Still unit assessments, that actually it meant terribly much to anybody beyond their course. During the course of progression towards the end point exam it has meaning and relevance but certainly, for external scrutiny, unit passes will mean, from a personal point of view, nothing. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

4.70 Another concern raised by employers was that individual unit scores would be very complex. This would be a particular problem for the readability of CVs.

I just think it ends up confusing for people sending in their CV, it ends up with a very unruly CV. You want somebody's qualifications to be short, you don't want to be taking up a page with all the different units on it. (Employer, qualitative research)

Option C (selected by 9% of all respondents) - Compensatory award at the level of the course studied with no grade awarded

Reasons for selecting option C

4.71 Option C was not popular. However, a few respondents saw some benefit to this choice. The main benefit cited was that it acknowledges that the pupil has completed the course.

Objections to option C

4.72 There was much more opposition to option C than support and the main reasons provided for this were:

• that it could be confusing to employers. They may think a pupil has passed a qualification when they have not
  The option where something appears on their certificate, English General with no grade, an employer is going to look at that and think, 'oh they've got that', they won't be aware that there isn't a grade at the right hand side and it doesn't count, so you would have to be pretty clued into the qualification system to realise that they sat it, but didn't pass it. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

• that if employers do understand option C they would see it as a fail and give no value to the award. It would be considered a certificate of attendance only.
  That would count against them, just straight away, that would count against them in the work environment straight away. That option C would be immediately stigmatized by recruiters. (Employer, qualitative research)

Option D (selected by 10% of all respondents) - Compensatory grade C award at the level of course below that studied.

Option E (selected by 5% of all respondents) - Compensatory grade A award at the level of course below that studied.

Reasons for selecting options D and E

4.73 Although not popular options there was support from some respondents for options D and E. These respondents, particularly pupils, thought that a student would only study a higher level if they were capable of work at that level and therefore would be able to pass the level below.

… you are studying at the level above then you are obviously able to do the level above, then if you are going to a level below then you are at least getting good marks for it. (Pupil, qualitative research)

Caveats for agreement with options D and E

4.74 Those that agreed with options D and E did so with some reservations. The main concerns that were raised were:

• that there would need to be clear evidence that articulation between levels is sufficient to legitimately award a grade at the lower qualification if a pupil has just missed passing the higher level
  I can't make that decision without knowing how the coursework in Advanced General relates to General and whether the 'A' in a General, does relate to a 48% in Advanced? So I can't answer that question (Employer, qualitative research)

• that there should also be the option of offering a B grade at the level below
  I guess it depends on what mark you got like how bad you failed it. If you just failed it by a couple of marks, get an 'A'. If you failed it miserably you get a 'C', in the middle a 'B', makes more sense (Pupil, qualitative research)

• that the awarding of a compensatory grade at the level below would depend on how well the pupil had actually performed in their final exam. It would only be appropriate to award a grade if pupils had reached a certain level of competence
  Option E, then I think I would prefer that as long as demonstration had been made through the units and through prelims or whatever that this was indeed somebody who had just missed out on the level above. (Headteacher, qualitative research)
• employers were divided on whether the fact that an award is compensatory should appear on a candidate's certificate.

Objections to options D and E

4.75 The main reasons given for opposition to D and E were:

• that the 'safety net' of compensation would lead to inappropriate presentation at a higher level
  Option E is unacceptable and has been proven in practice to lead to presentation at inappropriate levels. (Educational Institute of Scotland, consultation response)

• that pupils would become demotivated and would not put in the required effort if they know they will get an award anyway
  I mean if they want people to try for the exams they don't want to be doing that, I mean I wouldn't work if I knew I was going to get an 'A' at Intermediate Two. (Pupil, qualitative research)

• that they are unfair to pupils working towards and achieving the lower level qualification. It was considered that giving out as a 'consolation prize' the qualification that some have worked hard to achieve detracts from their success
  Compensatory grades feel unfair to us. They could be seen to diminish the value of the effort of those who did tackle the exam at the lower level (Secondary school, consultation response)

• that pupils should not be awarded a qualification that they have not sat an exam for or even studied. Respondents thought that it would be unjust and illogical for pupils to be given an award that they did not earn
  The clear preference was that we offer certification and recognition for work done… We do not believe that young people should be offered compensation through a course that they have not studied or through study at a different level from that at which they have operated and on that basis Option B is the preferred one. (Association of Directors of Education Scotland, consultation response)

• that different levels of the same subject often contain very different material. A pupil studying at the higher level would not necessarily have passed the qualification at the level below because they have not covered the material
  Compensatory grades at lower levels are not appropriate as the courses studied at different levels cover not merely a lesser quantity of knowledge but qualitatively different areas and types of understanding. (Teacher, consultation response)

• that compensatory awards such as these have been tried and discarded in the past
• that, in practical terms, it is possible that pupils will already have a better pass at the level below and so the compensatory award would be worthless or confusing
• that these awards appear to be a reward for failing.

4.76 In terms of specific arguments against options D and E it was felt that awarding an 'A' at the level below was too high and that a 'C' was too low. As previously mentioned some respondents felt that a 'B' grade would be more appropriate while others felt that the particular grade should depend on the level of attainment.

4.77 While few respondents placed option D as their top choice, it was preferred to option E. The many arguments presented by opponents of options D and E were thought to apply to a much greater extent if the grade given at the level below was an 'A' rather than a 'C'.

Alternatives to existing options

4.78 Some respondents felt that none of the above options were appropriate. The main suggestions for alternatives were:

• if pupils perform badly in the final exam they should use the evidence based appeals system
• pupils should be given the opportunity to resit exams
• there should simply be an award for course completion
• some respondents would like to see a combination of option A and B making up a compensatory award
• pupils should sit exams at two levels (in line with common practice in Standard Grade) to give them a safety net at the lower level
• pupils should be awarded an 'A', 'B' or 'C' grade at the level below dependent on how well they have performed overall.

Q6. The proposed name for the new award is General ( SCQF 4) and Advanced General ( SCQF 5).

Please indicate if you are content with this suggestion. If not, please offer an alternative and explain your choice.

4.79 Almost all (1679 out of 1807) answered this question. The majority were not in favour: 71% of all respondents disagreed while 21% agreed.

4.80 Employers who responded to the consultation were more likely than other groups to agree with the proposed names. However, this was not replicated in the qualitative research, in which all groups were typically against the proposal.

4.81 Around a third (594) of those responding to the consultation provided alternative suggestions.

4.82 Respondents had views on the criteria the names should meet, although they acknowledged the difficulty in finding suitable names. They felt that the names should:

• be positive
• be simple
• avoid confusion with the current names
• be meaningful i.e. provide an indication of the level achieved
• fit well within the naming structure of the other SCQF qualifications .

4.83 The perceived significance of the names varied, with employers and teachers feeling more strongly than other groups that they were important in conveying the meaning of the qualification to the public and, in particular, employers.

Reasons for disagreement with the proposed names and reasons for alternative suggestions

4.84 There was a sense that respondents found the proposed names uninspiring.

4.85 There was also a view that the names were meaningless as they did not provide an indication of what level had been attained. It was suggested that this would be better achieved by including the SCQF levels in the names, for example, Scottish Certificate (of Education) Level 4 and 5.

These names do not give a direct indication of what the learning they are accrediting means. The change to bring in the use of the Curriculum for Excellence provides an ideal opportunity to move from an emphasis on different qualifications types to a focus on the levels and credits a qualification attracts on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework ( SCQF). Thus a Scottish National Qualification at SCQF 4 or a Scottish National Qualification at SCQF Level 5 provides information on both the type of award and level needed by receiving employers or learning providers. (Scotland's Colleges, consultation response)

Wider use of SCQF level - keep it simple and use SCQF Level 4 and SCQF Level 5. If this is the standard for our entire education system make pupils, parents, teachers and employers more aware of this broader framework. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)

Specific issues with the name General

4.86 There were two main issues with the proposed name General being used for the new award at SCQF level 4:

• the literal meaning of the word and the associated connotations that it brings to mind: 'boring', 'average', 'dull' and 'meaningless'.
  - It's almost like saying average […]
  - It makes you sound the same as everybody else.
  - Nothing special. (Pupils, qualitative research)
  I mean general, doesn't give a person much motivation, it sounds you're average, so what do they gain what do they aim for, well if I'm average then I'm average and they could be demotivated by it I suppose. (Employer, qualitative research)

• confusion with the current names. It was suggested that the names should either be kept the same as they are now i.e. General and Credit or be changed to something completely different: keeping just one part of the name was seen as the most confusing option.
  Why not leave it as credit and general? […] Far easier, straightforward, no problems, no hassle, just leave it at that. (Teacher, qualitative research)
  Employers will be confused. If someone who applies for a job has a General pass at the old S'' Grade, it will be difficult to differentiate them from someone who has achieved the new General qualification. Please please please use a name that has never been utilised in the Scottish system before. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)

Specific issues with the name Advanced General

4.87 The suggestion to call the qualification at SCQF level 5 Advanced General also raised concerns. These included:

• the combination of the words 'advanced' and 'general'. Respondents felt that the two words did not fit well together as their meanings contradict each other.
  I just find advanced general […] two conflicting words, you are either general or advanced and you can't be both. (Teacher, qualitative research)
  Advanced General sounds almost like an oxymoron - ''Superior Ordinary'' (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)

• a lack of clarity that Advanced General was a distinct level, above General, and not just a very high grade at the same level. There was a view that calling it Credit or Merit would better highlight the difference between the two qualifications.
  I think that SCQF 4 should be General but that SCQF 5 should be Credit as this would more clearly signify to both candidates and employers etc, that SCQF 5 was at a higher level than SCQF 4. (Secondary School Employee, consultation response)
  Keeping the names Intermediate 1 and Intermediate 2 was also suggested as a way to show clearly the two levels.
  I think calling it Intermediate 1 and Intermediate 2, it makes it dead easy to understand the levels, there are different levels. (Employer, qualitative research)

• Advanced General suggests that the qualifications are progressions rather than alternatives. While some pupils might take a progressive route through them, it is likely that many will do an Advanced General qualification without having done the General qualification in that subject. Part of the reason for this confusion comes from the view that pupils have to pass a Higher in a subject in order to do an Advanced Higher.
  …I think that's why I think you should maybe change the name because people will get confused, because they've got to do Higher and then Advanced Highers, they might think they've got to do General and the Advanced General. (Pupil, qualitative research)

• the use of the word 'advanced' is unsuitable for a qualification at SCQF level 5 as it is not an advanced qualification.
  The term 'Advanced' should be kept for qualifications at Level SCQF 7, in line with Advanced Higher, GCE Advanced Level, and European national HE entry level qualifications which distinguish between subjects taken at an Advanced Level, or a more basic/general level. (Universities Scotland, consultation response)

• it does not fit well within the existing qualification structure. It is misleading because the qualification at SCQF level 6, Higher, does not have 'Advanced' in the name. It could, therefore, be construed that Advanced General is above Higher.
  I don't know about this Advanced General, I think the public, never mind teachers, would have considerable difficulty coming to terms with a level 5 having advanced and then level 6 not being called advanced, but then level 7 being advanced again, I think a better title could be found. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

Alternative name suggestions

4.88 Although respondents provided a range of alternative suggestions, these did not meet all of the criteria identified.

4.89 The most common alternative suggestions for the names of new awards were to:

• keep General for the award at SCQF level 4 and Credit for the award at SCQF level 5
• use SCQF levels. For example, Scottish Certificate (of Education) Level 4 and 5, Scottish Award Level 4; Scottish Award Level 5
• keep Intermediates 1 and 2.

4.90 Other suggestions included:

• Upper general (instead of Advanced General)
• Standard and Advanced Standard
• Ordinary grade
• Lower
• Bronze, silver and gold
• Advanced (instead of Advanced General)
• Access 4 and 5.

« Previous | Contents | Next »