The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

8 OTHER COMMENTS

8.1 Overall, around half of respondents (893 of 1807) responded in the 'any other comments' section of the consultation document. These comments did not always arise from consultation proposals but were often related to the implementation of a broad general education from pre-school to the end of S3 (and the particular implications of this for S1-S3) as proposed in Building the Curriculum 3 and to the consultation process itself, discussed below. Other points raised here have been covered in relation to specific questions ( e.g., that current courses should be revised as opposed to new courses being introduced, that resources for staffing levels, staff training and the development materials is a serious issue and that the aim of Curriculum for Excellence to reduce the assessment burden would not be achieved by the proposals and, in fact, the assessment burden might be increased).

8.2 A large number of the comments made illustrated interpretations of the guidance provided in Building The Curriculum 3 which are subject to current on-going work e.g. on assessment 3-18, recognising achievement and models to deliver a broad general education.

Broad general education and issues associated with early presentation

8.3 Building the Curriculum 3 - a Framework for Learning and Teaching proposes an entitlement for all children and young people to experience a broad general education from pre-school to the end of S3. This broad general education will include learning and teaching associated with all of the experiences and outcomes across all the curriculum areas up to and including the third curriculum level. This is re-stated in the consultation document which states that young people can expect their education to provide them with "a broad general education, including well planned experiences and outcomes across the curriculum from early years through to S3". This is not intended as a "common course", but as an opportunity to develop both breadth and depth of learning in a way that best meets the needs of individual young people. Building the Curriculum 3 further proposes that "most learners will progress into the fourth (curriculum) level in many aspects of their learning before the end of S3". The fourth curriculum level equates to SCQF level 4. The guidance further proposes that all young people are entitled to experience a senior phase to obtain qualifications as well as to develop further skills and the four capacities.

8.4 Full details can be found in Curriculum for Excellence: Building the Curriculum 3: A Framework for Learning and Teaching¹⁶.

8.5 Within both Building the Curriculum 3 and the consultation the Scottish Government reaffirmed its commitment to the principles set out in the national guidance on early presentation for examinations i.e. that "decisions about early presentation must be made in the best interests of the individual pupil - not classes, cohorts or year groups ". In line with this, the Scottish Government does not support early presentation other than in exceptional circumstances related to individuals.

8.6 Around one in six of those who made additional comments raised issues relating to the implementation of a broad general education in S1-S3 or the restrictions on early presentation.

8.7 These issues also came up in the qualitative discussions.

8.8 It should be noted that these issues were not specific consultation questions and were consequently not posed directly to qualitative participants. The spontaneous reactions to these plans were not systematically explored (in either the consultation or the qualitative research) and that those who did comment tended to do so because of their concerns about the proposals, based on the information they had. Therefore, we are unable to describe the full range of views and can, in no way, quantify the responses as we have done in the rest of the report. Rather, the following points should be taken as an indication of the concerns among some stakeholders.

8.9 Those who had concerns about the implementation of a broad general curriculum in S1-S3 tended to raise the following issues:

• there was a view that S1 and S2 (which are built currently around a common course) are already a "waste of time " for many pupils and that the implementation of a broad general curriculum to S3 (although not based upon a common course) could extend this problem further. Pupils were felt to become demotivated under current arrangements and appear ready to specialise in their chosen subjects by the end of S2, or earlier. Thus there were concerns that pupils could become demotivated further under the new arrangements and that discipline could become a bigger problem.
  1st and 2nd year were a waste of time, I look back and think what did I do? So if you just extend that with another year, what a waste. (Pupil, qualitative research)

• a related view was that making S3 a year in which pupils have a broad general education, as opposed to studying towards qualifications, would mean that pupils would gain less subject specific knowledge.
• the length of time available to study for General or Advanced General qualifications was also raised. There was a view that a year was not enough time in which to complete these courses and that the problem of a 'one-year dash' or 'two-term dash' to Higher qualifications would simply be extended to the General and Advanced General qualifications.
  S3 is currently a successful stage in Scottish education, ask any pupil, they enjoy S3. They gain focus and take ownership for their learning. After complaining about a one year dash at Higher we now also seem to be proposing a one year dash in S4 too. We like having a two year course in S3/S4. By all means update and alter the courses to include many of the excellent principles of the CfE but let's not throw away the strengths that currently exist. (Secondary school, consultation response)

• subject specific concerns were also raised. A fear was expressed, for example that the proposals for a broad general education could mean that pupils would be taught General Science for a year longer than at present, potentially by non-subject specialists, for example a Chemistry teacher teaching S3 Biology and Physics.
• the need for some form of assessment in S3 was a further point raised. There was a view that pupils should have something that will challenge them, provide feedback on their progression and ensure that their learning in S1 - S3 is properly recognised.
• it was clear that there was a common misunderstanding of the proposals regarding the number of subjects leading to qualifications that pupils would study during S4: many thought that all pupils would be restricted to studying for 5 qualifications only compared to the 8 that most currently study. Thus, there was a view that the plan for a broad general curriculum in S1-S3 would result in a narrowing of the curriculum in S4.
  …It appears from the proposal that pupils will follow a broad curriculum from S1-S3, but will then have a narrower choice than at present in terms of the first level of qualifications (the proposal appears to suggest that 5 subjects would be taken in S4). This significantly narrows choice for pupils … (Individual, consultation response)
• finally, the plans for the broad curriculum were seen to cause specific practical problems for Junior Schools in rural and island communities which provide S1-S4 education only.

8.10 A number of positive comments about the broad curriculum were also made. These included:

• pupils are better placed to make the important decision of subject choice at the end of S3 than the end of S2. As they are more mature, they are less likely to choose subjects that they think will be 'easy', and are possibly more likely to know what they want to do after leaving school.
  …when I made my choices in 3rd year I chose what I thought was going to be easy, as opposed to what was going to be relevant and good for what I maybe wanted to do later on in life. (College Student, qualitative research)

• it is the best way of ensuring that the principles of Curriculum for Excellence are implemented.
  extending the opportunity for General Education for the next generation is key in our ability to educate pupils in the spirit and practice of CfE. It allows public perception of ''general education'' to regain its previous esteem by re-focusing on Education's main aims: to enable/empower/challenge our children to become responsible citizens, effective contributors, successful learners and confident individuals. […] (Individual, consultation response)

8.11 Those who commented on the implications of the proposals on early presentation were typically disappointed by the decision of the Scottish Government to support it only in exceptional circumstances in the best interests of individual pupils. The following reasons were given:

• it goes against the principles of personalisation and choice embedded in Curriculum for Excellence.
  If one of the defining principles of A Curriculum for Excellence is personalisation and choice, it seems antithetical to remove the choice of early presentation from individual schools. (School Leaders Scotland)

• early presentation is felt to increase motivation and attainment, not only in the more able pupils but also in those working at SCQF level 3.
  Having just presented a class of youngsters at foundation level at the end of S3 and seen nearly the whole class achieve a grade 5 or 6, whereas similar classes presented at the end of S4 have not been as successful. (Secondary school teacher, consultation response)

Comments on the consultation process

8.12 Around one in six of those who made additional comments had concerns about the consultation process itself. A number felt that the consultation was vague and lacking in detail (this was also a point raised in responses to some specific questions). In particular, it was felt that without clear guidelines on the course content for the new qualifications at SCQF 4 and 5 it was difficult to make an informed response to the proposal. This extended to Curriculum of Excellence more generally, including the experiences and outcomes for particular subjects, as well as what the broad curriculum in S1-S3 would entail. Respondents indicated that for the consultation to hold greater meaning they would require exemplars of timetabling models, coursework and assessment materials.

8.13 Another issue to emerge was the style of the consultation. Both the consultation and Building the Curriculum 3 were described as 'full of jargon' and 'edu-speak' and some of the language was considered to be clichéd. It was suggested that this would make the documents less accessible to those not working in the field of education, specifically parents and employers. Other comments were critical of the fact that a number of decisions that were viewed as important (for example, to replace Standard Grade and Intermediates with a new qualification) had been taken in advance of the consultation exercise.

8.14 The extent of consultation was also questioned. In particular, some secondary school respondents thought that there should have been more active consultation with classroom teachers and that this should have occurred at an earlier stage in the formation of the proposals. ¹⁷ In addition, many felt that the consultation process should continue when more details are made available.

« Previous | Contents | Next »