« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
7 TIMELINE
Q16. It is intended that planning for the new curriculum should commence in 2008/09, with approaches based on the new curriculum introduced from school year 2009/10. This suggests that the new and revised qualifications and any increased flexibilities would be required from 2012/13 onwards to ensure smooth progression between the curriculum and qualifications. Is this indicative timeline realistic? Please comment on any implications to be considered.
It should be noted that, following Curriculum for Excellence Management Board advice, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on 31 October 2008 announced an additional year for implementation of Curriculum for Excellence, with the effect that new and revised qualifications are now to be introduced from 2013/14 onwards. This section discusses views on the indicative timeline contained in the consultation paper ( i.e. new and revised qualifications introduced from 2012/13).
7.1 Almost all respondents (1696 out of 1807) answered this question and 266 commented on the implications. Lower proportions of parents, respondents from universities and employers/business representatives responded.
7.2 The issue was not explored in the qualitative research with pupils, parents or employers.
7.3 Most respondents (78%) did not think that the indicative timeline was realistic and just 15% of all respondents thought that it was. However, almost three-quarters of respondents from colleges indicated that it was realistic.
Reasons for agreement with the proposal
7.4 Among the minority who were in favour, the most common reason given was simply that the changes should happen soon.
Time is not on the side of innovation if we are to set a global standard so as little delay as possible. (Individual, consultation response)
7.5 A couple of consultation respondents also commented that 'work expands to fill the time available' and that a delay would simply result in a ' the same rush just one year or so further down the line instead of now'.
Caveats and concerns from those in agreement
7.6 Almost half of those who were supportive of the proposed timeline had caveats. These mainly related to the resources required including:
- funding
- centrally provided resources including guidelines and course documentation
- CPD provision (and the time set aside to take advantage of it)
- consideration of teachers' workload.
I think it's totally realistic, it's achievable, given the appropriate resources, appropriate time, but before you can answer that question what kind for resources will we get to support it?(Teacher, qualitative research)
7.7 Other caveats were:
- the need for teachers to be 'on board' with the changes
- the need for parents, employers, colleges and universities to be informed and involved.
Reasons for disagreement with the proposal
7.8 The main reason for disagreement with the proposed timeline was that it was insufficient time for the necessary work to be carried out properly. This included planning, training of teachers, and the development of course materials, assessments and support materials.
The proposed timescale […] is unachievable. Not only are the proposals themselves complex, they also require considerable school organisation and considerable teacher CPD. (Educational Institute of Scotland)
7.9 Other common reasons given for disagreement were that:
- there is insufficient information about the changes and the proposals/ Curriculum for Excellence are too vague
There are too many unknowns in this system to allow a secondary school to plan the supposed 3 to 18 curriculum, which we are supposed to plan... (Headteacher, qualitative research)
- there is a need for more consultation
Gut feeling is you're a year too quick. For information and consultation use another year. (Teacher, qualitative research)
- changes should be piloted and/or phased in (several respondents suggested that lessons should be learned from the 'Higher Still experience').
7.10 It should be noted that a tiny proportion (less than 1%) of those who disagreed did so because they thought the changes should be implemented sooner.
Implications
7.11 Comments on the implications of the proposed timeline echoed the caveats and the points made in opposition, namely the need for:
- considerable preparation time to ensure changes are not rushed
- CPD for teachers
- teaching resources and support materials
- the involvement of all stakeholders
- teachers to be 'on board'.
« Previous | Contents | Next »