The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

5 PROPOSAL 3 - NEW AWARDS IN LITERACY AND NUMERACY WILL BE AVAILABLE AT SCQF LEVELS 3 TO 5

Summary of background information in the consultation paper

5.1 Evidence from HMIE and other sources suggests that there is a need to be much more rigorous and explicit about the development and certification of essential skills, particularly literacy and numeracy. This requirement goes beyond pupils with specific difficulties to encompass all pupils, including those entering higher education. Curriculum for Excellence offers the opportunity to ensure that there is a sustained focus on developing literacy and numeracy skills. To help strengthen this focus, the consultation proposed developing new awards to accredit literacy and numeracy skills - the Scottish Certificate for Literacy and the Scottish Certificate for Numeracy. The expectation is that all young people will be presented for these awards unless there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so. The awards should also be made available in the college sector to provide post-school and adult learners with the opportunity to improve their literacy and numeracy skills and be accredited for their achievements.

5.2 The proposed features of the new awards are as follows:

• There will be separate awards for literacy and numeracy, both available at SCQF levels 3 to 5. This will enable as many individuals as possible to attain an appropriate level of award. Schools and colleges should be mindful of the need to strike an appropriate balance between providing opportunities for individuals to demonstrate a higher level of achievement and imposing an unnecessary assessment burden. For example, the Scottish Government does not expect individuals to be presented for these awards in every year from S4 to S6.
• The awards will accredit a broad range of skills in literacy and numeracy on the basis of internally assessed evidence from a young person's work across the curriculum and an externally assessed examination. For those who have already left school and/or have not experienced the revised curriculum, the internally assessed element of the awards would draw upon work done in college, employment or through social, voluntary and cultural activities. The consultation requested views on whether there should be equal weight between the internal and external assessments, more weight given to the internal assessment or more weight given to the external assessment.
• To promote consistency, the Scottish Certificate for Literacy and the Scottish Certificate for Numeracy will be graded in the same way as other National Qualifications.

5.3 In taking forward detailed proposals for the awards, the Scottish Government will work with SQA and stakeholder groups to ensure that the new awards complement revised qualifications in English and Mathematics at SCQF levels 3 to 5. It will be necessary to revise the English and Mathematics qualifications to reflect the changes caused by the introduction of awards in literacy and numeracy. The consultation suggested that this provides an opportunity for English and Mathematics courses to focus on areas of learning which are not presently covered in depth.

Q7. Do you agree with the proposal to offer literacy and numeracy awards at a range of SCQF levels (3 to 5)? If not please offer an alternative.

5.4 Almost all (1688 out of 1807) respondents answered this question. Overall, a majority were in favour: 61% of all respondents agreed while 30% disagreed. Around a third of those who agreed did so with caveats.

5.5 Around three in five respondents from secondary schools were in favour of the proposal.

5.6 Most young people's representatives were in favour of the proposal while most Teachers' Associations were not.

5.7 A majority of parents who responded to the consultation were in favour of the awards. Parents who participated in the qualitative research were divided, with parents of children likely to go straight into employment after leaving school typically in favour of the awards and parents of children likely to go to university typically against the awards.

5.8 Colleges who responded to the consultation were more likely than other groups to be in favour of the proposal. However, college lecturers who took part in the qualitative research were typically against it.

5.9 Pupils who took part in the qualitative research were more split as to whether they agreed with the proposal. Those who were against the awards tended to be the more able pupils.

5.10 College students who took part in the qualitative research were in favour of the awards.

5.11 Employer bodies who responded to the consultation were strongly in favour of the awards. Employers who took part in the qualitative research were more divided.

Reasons for agreement with the proposal

5.12 The main reasons cited for agreeing with the proposal were that:

• literacy and numeracy are essential skills for life
  These skills are the building blocks of learning and therefore educational/life success - they should be given prominence in learning. (Secondary school employee, consultation response)
  I certainly think considering the life skills it's important and I think it is the whole handling money, what is a bank account, what is a credit account, how do you manage that, just all these life skills are so important. (Employer, qualitative research)

• it recognises literacy and numeracy as separate skills from English and Maths and provides a measurement of these skills which is useful for employers and colleges
  …literacy and numeracy awards offer learners a way of accrediting their competence, providers a way of gauging the success of their provision and employers and receiving educational institutions a measure of an individual's capabilities. (Scotland's Colleges, consultation response)
  A Scottish Certificate for Literacy and a Scottish Certificate for Numeracy would help small employers assess these crucial basic skills in potential employees. (Federation of Small Businesses, consultation response)
  This was seen as particularly important for pupils who do not perform well in English and Maths as the proposals offer them the option not to take qualifications in these subjects.
  For me Maths has always been my weakness, so for me that would be fantastic, it would really give you much more confidence and I think […] Maths is something a lot of people find really difficult, the same with the English, a feeling that you're competent in it, at least for every day sort of things would be fantastic. (College student, qualitative research)
  Employers commented that, for some jobs, literacy and numeracy qualifications rather than English and Maths would suffice.

• it will encourage the development of these skills across the curriculum, which will help pupils to use these skills in a range of contexts.
  It will be good for just promoting transferable skills, so you don't have to, to be doing Maths you don't need to be in the Maths classroom, to be writing you don't have to be in the English classroom. I suppose it will sort of promote that and get them to use the skills they have in a different context. (Teacher, qualitative research)

Caveats and concerns from those in agreement

5.13 Firstly, it should be noted that a number of respondents did not feel they had sufficient information about the proposal to provide a definitive response.

5.14 While many respondents agreed, in principle, with the idea that literacy and numeracy skills should be developed across the curriculum, a range of challenges and concerns were identified. These are discussed below.

• Practical and resource implications in organising the teaching and assessment
  Teachers, in particular, had concerns that bringing together a pupil's work across subjects in order to provide an internal assessment would be time-consuming.
  …if it is a folio of evidence to match up with the different skills in numeracy and literacy and all of that has to be collated from across the curriculum for a pupil, that is a large task to do and I don't know who is going to do that, given the staffing levels in the school. (Headteacher, qualitative research)
  They felt that current staffing levels would not be adequate to cover this additional work and that, unless additional resources were provided, it would be left to the English and Maths teachers to organise.
  The administration of such awards (the exam preparation, the results analysis, exam appeals etc) would be difficult. It seems like it would be an added burden for the Principal Teachers of Maths and English as, although there is a push to make all teachers responsible for these subjects, ultimately it will fall to Maths and English Departments. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)
  Further workload concerns for English and Maths teachers were raised in relation to the need for English and Maths courses to be rewritten due to the potential duplication with the literacy and numeracy outcomes.
  The proposal not to have separate literacy and numeracy classes raised concerns about the proposed external exam; how can pupils sit an exam in something where they have not attended any classes, who would prepare pupils for sitting the exam and where is the space in the curriculum to do so? Teachers were open about the fact that schools were likely to offer separate literacy and numeracy classes in order to overcome these issues.
  Of course the other problem is, if there are no literacy or numeracy classes and therefore nobody is technically accountable other than everybody being accountable, they can't really study up for it, the same way they might study up for something else and get it. You didn't pass it who do you go to?
  This is why there will be classes and they will be within the maths department and they will be in the English department, whatever you say about people being responsible for all of it. (Teachers, qualitative research)
  The assessment methods will be covered in more detail in the section on Question 9.

• The role of other subject teachers in teaching and assessing these skills
  There was a view that there would need to be a significant culture shift to persuade some teachers that it is not just the job of English and Maths teachers to teach literacy and numeracy.
  Is your average teacher going to break his guts to try to ensure that the pupil gets the numeracy award, or […], the literacy award? [..] Teachers will work and work and work very often to see their own kids, in their classroom, in their subject, coming through well and get a real buzz out of a good set of examination results, because there is that sense of ownership you are personally involved in the whole process. I suspect with something like literacy and numeracy you are not going to get that involvement. (Teacher, qualitative research)
  It was acknowledged that other teachers were already supporting the teaching of these skills without necessarily being aware of it. However, it was felt (particularly by other subject teachers) that there was a difference between doing this and formally assessing these skills; many felt that they had not received adequate training and therefore would not feel confident about doing so. They frequently commented that they had only been trained to teach their particular subject and that those who had been trained to teach literacy and numeracy would do a better job.
  For the examples of literacy and numeracy here, things like teaching fractions, now I can do fractions myself in my own way, but if I was trying to teach fractions to pupils, I would find that extremely difficult, whereas somebody with specialist knowledge of teaching maths could do a far better job than I could and I worry about non specialist literacy and numeracy [teachers] trying to embed the curriculum and making it successful and in fact, we might make a monumental failure on this one. (Teacher, qualitative research)
  Whilst it is a great idea and it is true we are all responsible for literacy, we don't have a teaching force that are skilled in teaching literacy, because most teachers, apart from maybe English teachers, have not come through any kind of training system whereby we have been taught how to teach literacy and develop the skills of literacy and understand it and to assess it, it's not something we have ever, ever done and for most teachers, they would find that extremely difficult to do. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

• concern that (almost) all pupils would be required to do them. It was acknowledged that these would be useful qualifications for pupils doing less well in English and Maths.
  If you are not good at English and not good at Maths that would be good to have like a smaller sub course you could be taking. (Pupil, qualitative research)
  However, there was a view, mainly among parents and employers, that there was no logic in pupils who were going to gain good qualifications in English and Maths, doing literacy and numeracy qualifications. Although these pupils would not be required to attend classes in literacy and numeracy, the fact that they would have to do assessments was seen as a waste of both pupils' and teachers' time.
  Nor is it clear that they will be of any particular value for those who are heading for externally assessed examinations in mathematics and/or English. Sufficient competence in numeracy and literacy will be subsumed in these examinations. (Scottish Mathematics Council, consultation response)
  Additionally, there was a view that the proposed requirement for (almost) all pupils to take the awards conflicted with the other proposals to increase flexibility and encourage the bypassing of lower qualifications.

• concern that the awards will not be valued. Closely linked to above point was a concern that the awards would be not valued by employers, colleges or universities. This was evidenced by comments such as:
  it could be argued that these awards are unnecessary for students who progress to achieving Higher English and Higher Mathematics respectively […] From a university perspective, a key issue is that students subsequently progressing to Higher English and Higher Mathematics are not delayed in commencing Higher level work by 'unnecessary' engagement with lower-level literacy and numeracy activities. (Universities Scotland, consultation response)
  We also query whether employers and other end-users will ignore the literacy and numeracy levels achieved by pupils as they accumulate qualifications at a later point at S4, S5 or S6: are we putting pupils through another set of examination hoops for no significant gain? (School Leaders Scotland, consultation response)
  Regardless, the need to inform employers so that they understand the new awards was identified.

• concern that English and Maths would no longer be seen as compulsory in certain schools. Although this was seen by some as a positive feature of the proposed awards, some respondents were concerned that the introduction of the literacy and numeracy awards will encourage schools to move away from the current practice of making English and Maths compulsory. Many wish this practice to remain, at least for all but the very few who found them too challenging. Pupils, particularly those wanting to go to university, had concerns in relation to university entrance requirements. They were aware that, currently, the majority of courses required them to have qualifications in these subjects and they also felt that they were important life skills to have.
  Pupils also expressed a concern that, when choosing their subjects, some pupils will lack the maturity to see the long term benefits of taking qualifications in English and Maths and might decide not to do so simply because they don't enjoy them. Teachers would need to ensure that this did not happen.
  ...when you are choosing to do it, I think you would have to talk to, like a guidance teacher or someone, because when you are say 14 or something, a lot of people are going to say, oh I'll do this, I don't have to do Maths and then realise two years later, I should have done Maths. (Pupil, qualitative research)
  Parents agreed that they would want their children to continue to do English and Maths as they saw them as the most important subjects.
  Teachers, in particular, were worried that pupils would miss out on important aspects of learning, for example, English literature.
  Furthermore, it was pointed out that not having to study English and Maths after S3 would mean that pupils would actually miss out on literacy and numeracy teaching as there was a perception that these were the subjects that would place most focus on these skills.
• concern about having awards at three levels. Among those who agreed with the awards, opinion varied on this issue, from those who thought there should only be one level offered to those content with three levels and those who were in favour of more than three levels. The main reason cited by those who believed that there should only be one level offered was that if these are basic competencies it is not necessary (or even logical) to offer them at three different levels. It was felt that one test was adequate and that pupils' awards should depend on how well they did in it. Having just one level would also avoid teachers and pupils having to reach agreement on which level the pupils should sit.
  …that doesn't make sense, why [do] you get different levels of numeracy, you can either do it or you can't. (Parent, qualitative research)
  Do you have a case conference for every single pupil where all the staff sit down, all the teachers sit down in a room and say, let's go for level four? (Teacher, qualitative research)
  Those who felt that the range of levels offered should be extended had concerns, related to inclusivity and recognition of achievement, that there were no proposed literacy and numeracy awards for pupils working at Access Levels 1 and 2; are pupils who do not achieve them going to be labelled 'illiterate' and 'innumerate'?
  We question why awards in literacy/numeracy at Access 1/2 level are not to be offered. We feel this runs counter to the principles of inclusion and recognition of pupil achievement. (Dumfries and Galloway Council, consultation response)

Reasons for disagreement with the proposal

5.15 Those who did not agree with the proposal acknowledged the fact that literacy and numeracy were important skills. However, they had fundamental doubts about the need to have awards in them. These included:

• pupils should have these basic skills already. The most common reason for disagreeing with the proposal was that pupils should already be taught these basic skills and that there was therefore no need for an award in them. Some felt strongly that pupils should have obtained these basic skills in primary school and that if they had there would be no need for these awards in the secondary curriculum.
  …Literacy and numeracy should be firmly embedded by the end of primary school (second level, under CfE). Children (with certain exceptions, those with profound ASL needs for example) should not enter their secondary schools (or third stage) until they are demonstrably functionally literate and numerate. (Individual, consultation response)
  Others questioned what was being covered in English and Maths if it was not literacy and numeracy skills.
  I think they are kind of like things you should learn in English and Maths. If you're not learning them in English and Maths then that is kind of worrying. What are you doing in English and Maths? (Pupil, qualitative research)
  We already have effective tests of literacy and numeracy, called Standard Grade English and Maths! (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)
  Furthermore, there was a view among teachers that teaching and assessment of literacy and numeracy across the curriculum was in place already as part of the Core Skills framework.

• over-assessment. While those in favour of the awards identified practical issues with the chosen assessment methods, those opposed had more basic concerns about the fact there would be assessment at all. There was a view that the requirement that (almost) all pupils will have to take these awards conflicts with the aim of reducing the burden of assessment and, more specifically, the proposal to allow the most able pupils to bypass lower qualifications. Concerns were raised about the increased workload for both pupils and teachers that introducing these awards would create. Cost implications were also mentioned.
  Our initial response to this proposal is why are more exams being added to the systems? If we are to meet the aspiration detailed in the report of the Curriculum Review Group that assessment supports learning, adding more exams than we currently have at present is not necessarily the best way to achieve that aspiration. (Perth & Kinross Education and Children's' Services, consultation response)

• 'teaching to the test'. There was a view that having an element of external assessment will lead to teachers teaching pupils what they needed to know in order to pass an exam as opposed to teaching for learning. This would also mean that less teaching time is available.
  It's this idea that the answer must be we'll give them another assessment, we'll give them another test, that in itself is flawed because what you'll find in that in each stage kids have been driven by testing, not been driven by education in Maths. (College lecturer, qualitative research)
  There is agreement about the need to move away from any concept of "teaching to the test". It is ironic therefore that, in order to ensure the central role of literacy and numeracy, the mechanism chosen is precisely to create tests in these areas. A statement of ability in literacy and numeracy, as part of the end of S3 statement of achievement, would suffice to secure their centrality and would prevent the intrusion of an assessment-led imposition on the senior phase. (Educational Institute of Scotland, consultation response)

5.16 Other reasons provided by those disagreeing with the proposal mirrored the caveats made by those who agreed with the awards discussed above. These included:

• practical and resource implications in organising the teaching and assessment
• prospect of schools moving away from the practice of making English and Maths compulsory
• whether the awards would be valued by employers, colleges and universities.

5.17 Finally, concerns were raised as to whether the literacy award would be achievable for pupils for whom English was not their first language and pupils who were dyslexic. How their performance in other subjects might be affected if literacy assessment is to be engrained across the curriculum was also a worry.

Q8. National Qualifications at Access 3 ( SCQF level 3) do not have an external examination. Do you agree that any new awards in literacy and numeracy at SCQF level 3 should have an examination?

5.18 Almost all (1661 out of 1807) answered this question. Overall, a small majority of those who expressed an opinion were in favour: 49% of all respondents agreed while 42% disagreed.

5.19 This question was not explored in the qualitative research with pupils, college students, employers and parents.

5.20 Half of secondary school respondents were in favour of the proposal while slightly fewer were opposed.

5.21 Colleges, universities and local authorities were more likely to disagree with the proposal.

5.22 It was apparent that this question was commonly misinterpreted and that some had answered more generally about whether there should an external exam in literacy or numeracy at any level.

Reasons for agreement with the proposal

5.23 By far the most common reasons cited for agreeing that the new awards in literacy and numeracy at SCQF level 3 should have an external examination related to the credibility and value of the award. As internal assessment was seen to be more open to abuse by pupils, parents and teachers (as discussed in the sections on Questions 3, 4 and 9), not having an external assessment at all would mean a lack of quality assurance. Additionally, it was felt that there should be consistency in the assessment methods across the levels in the new awards.

… the credibility of whatever they are awarded,[…] has to be consistent and understandable and unable to be doctored. (Teacher, qualitative research)

They've got to be the same across the board, if the whole thing is about consistency and credibility, then if it's externally assessed then they're all externally assessed. (Teacher, qualitative research)

5.24 Other reasons given related to inclusiveness. This has been identified as a positive feature of Standard Grades as pupils at level 3 taking of the same qualification as those at levels 4 and 5. There was a view that those at level 3 currently manage to achieve in the Standard Grade external exam and that this gives the qualification credibility.

5.25 Removing the exam for pupils at this level raised the following related concerns:

• external exams motivate both pupils and teachers and ensure that courses are taken seriously
  - Children in mainstream schools can do exams.
  - If you take away that then how are you going to keep them engaged?
  - It excludes them even more if you don't even have an exam. (Teachers, qualitative research)
  Often when it is decided that a pupil is presented only at Access 3 and they realise they do not sit an exam it is difficult to maintain motivation. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)
  I think children at this stage in their education need an external examination to bring home to them the seriousness of study and the need for education. Class tests and internal exams do not always, or seldom, have the same effect as an external exam. (Individual, consultation response)

• it boosts pupils' confidence
  …I think that sitting exams is a good experience for people if they want to improve their confidence. If they are taken at a lower level then they are not seen by some as an elitist task. People will then have the courage to try more at a higher level and not be so intimidated. (Individual, consultation response)

Caveats and concerns from those in agreement

5.26 A small proportion of those who agreed with the proposal did so with caveats. These included:

• the award must also comprise internal assessment
• concerns about who is preparing pupils for the exams (it was unclear if this was a concern specific to pupils working at this level or whether it was a concern at all levels)
• the exam does not have to take the form of a traditional external assessment ( i.e. it could be done in the classroom or online) and it should be based more on skills than on retention
  I think that examinations are important as they challenge young people, but it should not be a retention of knowledge, they should challenge the young person to use the skills they've developed. (Individual secondary teacher, consultation response)

Reason for disagreement with the proposal

5.27 The main reason given by those who disagreed with the proposal was that external exams can be a barrier to attainment for pupils working at SCQF level 3 as they cannot cope with that form of assessment. Internal assessments were seen as being more suitable.

No. I think the arguments for internal assessment, whether that's to be externally moderated or whatever, I think that should be maintained. I think for some pupils at that level, sitting a formal examination is not the best way of assessing their capability and performance, it is off-putting. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

5.28 For some of these pupils, disengagement with school and poor attendance means that they are at risk of not attending the final exam and therefore not obtaining a qualification at all.

My Access pupils are vulnerable pupils - they have various learning issues and some have poor attendance. They achieve a good standard in short bursts of work which suits them. If they had to attend an examination I think they would not bother to turn up. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)

5.29 The other main reason related to consistency at SCQF level 3: why should there be external exams in literacy and numeracy but not in other subjects at this level?

Furthermore, it does not seem necessary to introduce external examinations for these awards, as this would diverge from the approach taken to other SCQF level 3 awards. (Universities Scotland, consultation response)

5.30 Others commented on the costs involved in having an external exam for pupils at this level. There was a view that this did not justify any potential benefits.

Caveats and concerns from those disagreeing with the proposal

5.31 The main caveat from those who disagreed with the proposal was that there would have to be external moderation of the internal assessment to ensure that the award had credibility.

Q9. Should weighting between the internal and external assessments for the Literacy and Numeracy awards be equal? If not, should more weight be attached to the internal or external assessment? (A) Equal weight (B) More weight to internal assessment (C) More weight to external assessment

5.32 Most (1498 out of 1807) respondents replied to this question and just under half of all respondents (49%) stated that more weight should be given to external assessment (Option C). Eighteen per cent of respondents supported equal weighting (Option A) and 14% thought that more weight should be given to internal assessment (Option B).

5.33 Respondents from secondary schools were more likely than other groups to support Option C.

5.34 In the qualitative research, pupils and parents were broadly split between Option A (equal weighting) and Option B (more weight to internal assessment).

Reasons for agreement with Option C (more weight to external assessment)

5.35 Respondents who selected Option C believed that more weight should be given to external assessment so that the new awards are seen as credible qualifications. They felt that credibility is important so that these awards are recognised by employers and universities. Similar to the findings in relation to unit assessments (Questions 3 and 4), there were concerns over the robustness of internal assessment and it was felt to be open to abuse.

I'm getting the impression continuous assessment is a wee bit of coaching with the tutor, oh you know that, come on, remember I told you, all right, then write the answer. (Employer, qualitative research)

5.36 A closely related perception was that external assessment is necessary in order to ensure consistency across schools which would also have an impact on the credibility of the award.

The more internal you have, the more difficult it is to ensure consistency. We have been down this road before with Standard Grades, where there were far more investigations assessed internally and gradually these were removed because of lack of confidence by the public, by teachers, by SQA, that an 'A' grade in one school was the same as an 'A' in another. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

Caveats for agreement with Option C (more weight to external assessment)

5.37 A number of respondents (including some who supported the other options) stated that they would prefer to have weighting adjusted depending on the level of the award so that more weight is given to internal assessment at level 3, equal weight at level 4 and more weight to external assessment at level 5. This was mainly suggested by respondents to the consultation document and the reasons for this are unclear. However, it might be that these respondents were taking into account the problems of external assessment for pupils at lower levels (as discussed at Question 8).

Reasons for agreement with Option A (equal weight)

5.38 A common perception among those who agreed with Option A was that equal weighting was the fairer option. By placing equal emphasis on both types of assessments, it would give pupils who do well in exams a fair chance as well as those who do well in coursework.

I just thought 50/50 was a fairer move. If they have done well all year then panicked when they went to the exam, or fell behind, or were worried about something, they were still getting their 50% for all the year's work which is better than nothing. (Parent, qualitative research)

It gives you a chance either way if you've not done so well throughout the year and then during the exam you do much better and it gives you a chance to still get a good grade. (College student, qualitative research)

Reasons for agreement with Option B (more weight to internal assessment)

5.39 A widespread reason among those in favour of Option B was that literacy and numeracy skills are best assessed through continuous internal assessment. In principle, these respondents felt that internal assessment is more in line with the day-to-day life skills and cross-curricular approach envisioned for these awards.

These awards are to reflect a pupil's day-to-day achievements in literacy and numeracy that they will need for everyday life. It is only fitting therefore that most of the assessment is carried out in day-to-day situations; rather than letting it hang on a one-off examination. (Teacher, consultation response)

5.40 The practical problems of putting together an examination paper that tests numeracy and literacy skills were also mentioned (by supporters of Option B and of Option A).

I can't get my head round what the format of the exam would be, it's assessing skills that are visual, observable and day-to- day. (Teacher, qualitative research)

Q10. When should young people be assessed for literacy and numeracy awards?

Option A At the end of S3 as part of the summer diet of examinations
Option B In the December of S4 as part of a winter diet of examinations
Option C At the end of S4 as part of the summer diet of examinations.

5.41 Most respondents (1496 of 1807) answered this question. However, around a third of universities, employers/business representatives, colleges and parents did not answer.

5.42 Option A was the most popular option: 49% of all respondents selected option A, 3% selected option B, 20% selected option C and 9% felt that none of the above options were adequate. However, these numbers may be misleading - although option A was selected as the best of the three options by a large number of respondents, it appears from their comments that they would have chosen an alternative if it was on offer. Commonly suggested alternatives were that the awards should be taken earlier or that they should be taken when the pupil is ready.

5.43 Option A was the most popular option with all categories of respondents. This option was less popular with colleges, universities and employers than with other subgroups. Nonetheless, it was still their most common choice. Option C was the second most popular choice, although none of the employers/business representatives selected it. Option C was more popular with secondary school respondents than it was with parents, colleges, universities and local authorities. Pupils in the qualitative research were divided on the subject and could see the advantages and disadvantages of all three options.

5.44 Option B was very rarely selected as the preferred option. In fact, respondents were more likely to think that none of the suggested timings were acceptable than to choose option B. Colleges, universities and local authorities, in particular, felt that other options would be appropriate.

Option A (selected by 49% of all respondents) - At the end of S3 as part of the summer diet of examinations

Reasons for selecting option A

5.45 Option A was the most popular option and this was echoed in the qualitative research. The main reasons provided for this were that:

• taking the literacy and numeracy awards in S3 would give pupils more time to work towards their subject exams in the summer of S4. It was thought that the new General/Advanced General awards should be kept separate to literacy and numeracy as they were seen as more important
  I would say the end of 3rd year and I think that seems to be pretty common from people I talk to, partly to get it out of the way if you like, before they start their other subjects. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

• pupils are already overloaded with exams in S4 and it would not fair to add to this assessment burden
• the literacy and numeracy awards would be a good way to mark the end of the broad curriculum in S1-3. This was seen as especially important as a motivational factor for these years. Some respondents felt that extending the broad educational experience for an extra year would result in pupils losing focus (an issue discussed in more detail in section 8.9). Respondents thought that pupils often do not take studying seriously until they have exams to work towards. The literacy and numeracy awards were seen as going some way to providing motivation of this type for pupils in S1-3
  I would say do it [literacy and numeracy awards] at the end of S3 because they have a focus and a point for their third year. If you don't they've drifted, they have no focus. (Teacher, qualitative research)

• the results from the literacy and numeracy awards could provide an indication of the level a pupil should be working at in S4. This was seen as particularly important in situations where a pupil may be struggling in these areas and the problem could be 'flagged up' and addressed earlier
  …if you do the literacy and numeracy test… and fail it then the teachers are going to recognise that you've got those problems because you failed and then over the next years they can help you pick your subjects and help you build up those skills. (Pupil, qualitative research)

• it would be best for pupils to sit the literacy and numeracy awards at the earliest time offered because, if they do not have literacy and numeracy skills by that point, then it was unlikely that they would improve by S4
• the time between S3 and S4 is a critical one for pupils and they can be become disengaged by the end of S4. More pupils will be engaged with learning and will more likely to attend the exam if they are presented for the literacy and numeracy awards at the end of S3
  ...when you work in an area where you have a higher proportion of pupils who are likely to become disaffected and sometimes go off the rails, they tend to do that between S3 and S4. They are the pupils who often miss out on sitting any qualifications in S4 in Maths and English at the moment, but they still tend to be fairly well engaged up to the end of S3. (Headteacher, qualitative research)

Opposition to option A

5.46 Teachers, in the qualitative research in particular, felt that there were problems with option A. The main reason was that some felt that pupils in S3 would not take literacy and numeracy awards seriously. It was felt that if literacy and numeracy awards were to be separated from the 'proper' exams, pupils would not think of them as important.

5.47 A common point raised in the consultation was that there is a contradiction between sitting the literacy and numeracy awards in S3 and the general policy against early presentation for other awards.

Option B (selected by 3% of all respondents) - In the December of S4 as part of a winter diet of examinations

Reason for selecting option B

5.48 Option B was selected by a very small minority. Those that did select option B felt that taking the awards at the end of the winter term would reduce the pressure that pupils are under at the end of S4.

5.49 Another argument in support of option B was that pupils may not have reached their full potential at the end of S3. Once pupils have embarked on their subject qualifications, their literacy and numeracy skill may develop further, making the winter of S4 a more appropriate time to take these awards.

Opposition to option B

5.50 Option B was favoured by very few respondents and one of the strongest objections expressed was that they were opposed to a winter diet of exams in general (an issue discussed in more detail in the section on Q12). The timetabling problems that would result from winter exams were commonly raised.

Option C (selected by 20% of all respondents) - At the end of S4 as part of the summer diet of examinations.

Reasons for selecting option C

5.51 Although option C was not the most popular there was some support for this choice. The main reasons cited were that:

• in practical terms, this option would cause the least disruption to schools. Some respondents felt that it would be sensible to slot the new literacy and numeracy awards into the existing exam arrangements
  It would be important to only have one main diet of examinations, as too many exams would eat in to teaching time and not allow the ideals of Curriculum for Excellence to operate properly. (Teacher, consultation response)

• option C would give pupils the time to develop literacy and numeracy skills to as high a level as possible. Teachers in the qualitative research, in particular, felt this was important. Some teachers indicated that pupils often do not take studying seriously until they reach S4. Once pupils start to work on what they consider to be their 'important' exams, their performance often improves dramatically
  I think I would lean more towards the summer at the end of 4th year, because you've got all your exams, so you would be like ready, whereas in 3rd year you don't think of exams, I know I didn't, it was just like it didn't matter. (Pupil, qualitative research)

• taking exams requires a certain amount of maturity and a few respondents felt that pupils in S3 would not have this.

5.52 A number of the pupils in the qualitative research felt that sitting the literacy and numeracy awards at the end of S4 would not increase the pressure they were under at this time. There was a feeling that sitting all their qualifications at once would be preferable to having exams, and consequently the stress of exams, more often.

Opposition to option C

5.53 There was some opposition to option C. In the qualitative research, although some pupils thought that adding two more exams to the summer diet would not be a burden, others felt that this would make the exam diet an even more stressful time. The main issue raised from the consultation was that S4 would be far too late to test these skills, especially in terms of addressing any problems with literacy and numeracy that they may highlight.

Alternatives and other comments

5.54 Option A was the preferred of the three, given the choices available. However, a number of respondents made it clear that they would, in fact, prefer an alternative. In addition, some respondents thought that none of the above options would be a suitable time to take literacy and numeracy awards. The main alternatives cited were that:

• pupils should be allowed more time to develop the skills they need to achieve the literacy and numeracy awards. The view was that the timing of awards should be flexible for all pupils. This was seen as important for upholding the principles of personalisation and flexibility of Curriculum for Excellence
  A significant number of teachers have questioned the validity of waiting until a particular date when pupils may well already be operating at an appropriate level in the early secondary or even in primary. There is some articulation of a continuous process where pupils are tested at appropriate stages as and when they are ready. (Secondary school department, consultation response)
  It will be important in this case that targets for schools take into account the new philosophy of "the right time for the learner on his/her learning journey", rather than having all learners "through the qualification by a certain stage". (Scotland's Colleges, consultation response)

• literacy and numeracy skills should not be assessed by an external exam at all. These respondents felt that continuous internal assessment of literacy and numeracy would be a better way to measure attainment
  Should be possible to achieve the award at any point based on internally assessed work. Evidence of competence could be accumulated from a variety of sources, including course work from a range of subjects. (Secondary School Department, consultation response)

• the literacy and numeracy awards should be taken earlier than S3. A number of respondents were concerned that if assessment of the awards did not take place until S3, there would be no assessment of literacy and numeracy skills (and identification of any problems) before this point. If a pupil struggles with these vital skills or has any gaps in their knowledge, respondents felt that these issues would need to be identified earlier. This would allow enough time to address these issues before pupils embarked on their subject qualifications. In addition, if these skills are focused on from 3-18, as suggested by Curriculum for Excellence, then respondents saw no benefit in waiting until S3 to formally assess them
  If there is to be a formal assessment of literacy and numeracy, it is difficult to understand why this should be held back until the end of S3, particularly if we are already seeing significant numbers of pupils having difficulty accessing the secondary curriculum in S1. The principle of early intervention suggests that the focus on literacy and numeracy should be much earlier than S3, perhaps even as early as P7. (Teacher, consultation response)

• pupils should all take the awards at a set point in time but the possibility of upgrading the qualification at a later date should be available, if they subsequently develop their skills.

« Previous | Contents | Next »