CONSULTATION PAPER

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this consultation paper is to seek views on how national advice on the curriculum in Scotland should be provided and what are the best national arrangements for developing practical guidance on the curriculum for use in schools. This requires a careful consideration of the role and functions of the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC) and the Scottish Council on Educational Technology (SCET). Both bodies have a vital role in the development and delivery of guidance on curricular matters. The paper sets out three options for the future organisation of these bodies.

1.2 Interested individuals and organisations are invited to submit their comments by no later than 30November 1998 to this address: Mrs S Tait, Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, Area 2A/29, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ.

1.3 A number of questions are included towards the end of this document and the procedure for responding to this document is also summarised in the final section of this consultation paper.

1.4 In line with normal practice, the Department is prepared to make available to members of the public, on request, copies of the responses to this consultation paper. If any respondents wish their comments to be excluded from this arrangement they should clearly mark them to indicate this and their confidentiality will be strictly respected.

2. Background

The Reviews

2.1 Both SCET and the SCCC are Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). It is a matter of general policy that the continued existence, remit, functions, organisation and management of all significant NDPBs should be reviewed every 5years. Reviews have been carried out on both the SCCC and SCET in recent months and they form the background to the questions in this consultation paper. The proposals in the reviews raise important questions about the future management and organisation of curricular advice and development at the national level on which the Government feels it right to consult before reaching final conclusions.

Government Aims

2.2 The Government’s central aim is to secure a sustained improvement in standards in schools in order to make Scottish education a world leader. In order to achieve that end, the curriculum requires constant monitoring and review and adaptation in order to meet the changing requirements of society, the economy and the huge and rapid developments in information and communications technology (ICT). The national mechanism for generating authoritative advice on the curriculum and the development of high quality curricular materials must be capable of responding rapidly to those changing needs.

2.3 At the same time, curriculum advice and development must maintain as a key principle the importance of ensuring that children are equipped with the basic skills which they require to take their place in the economy and society. The challenge for the curriculum has always been to deliver those basic requirements in the context of a broad and balanced curriculum which will give each child the opportunity of a fully rounded education. It is a major challenge, made more difficult by the process of change.

2.4 The question faced by the reviews of the SCCC and SCET was whether these institutions in their present form are best placed to meet the challenge of maintaining and developing the modern curriculum. Scotland is fortunate in having had a well-developed system for arriving at national agreement on the content of the curriculum and delivering that through major programmes of curriculum development carried through by the SCCC, working with HM Inspectorate and the Department. The role of each of the SCCC and SCET are considered in turn in the following paragraphs.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

2.5 The SCCC is an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), the principal functions of which are to provide advice to the Secretary of State on the whole range of the school curriculum in Scotland, and, in accordance with a programme proposed by or agreed by him, to carry through development work and to provide advice and guidance to education authorities and schools.

2.6 In its advisory function the SCCC is expected to keep the curriculum of schools in Scotland under review, and, as a result of that process, to advise the Secretary of State on any matters relating to the curriculum. This might involve the SCCC, on occasions, taking the initiative and offering advice to the Secretary of State, and, on other occasions, the Secretary of State asking for the advice of the SCCC. In its executive function the SCCC has a role in promoting and overseeing programmes of curriculum development. In pursuit of this the SCCC liaises with education authorities, schools and other education bodies to ensure that curriculum development is carried out in accordance with Government policy.

2.7 SCCC is financed through a core grant of £1.425m (1997-98) which covers staff salaries (60%) and administrative costs (40%). The Council also obtains additional funding for specific projects under the 5-14 or Higher Still reforms from SOEID and sponsorship from private companies to undertake educational projects.

Scottish Council for Education Technology

2.8 SCET is an executive NDPB whose aims include the requirements that they should be expert in the application of educational technology to learning, that they should be recognised as a source of expertise and that they should be a source of information and advice on educational technology to central and local government.

2.9 SCET is financed through a core grant of £1.337 million and as with the SCCC, SCET obtains additional funding for special projects from SOEID and it earns substantial income from separate commercial activity. SCET’s turnover for 1997-98 was £3.884 million.

3. The Reviews

3.1 The reviews of the SCCC and SCET carried out in the latter part of 1997 and the early part of this year were the first stage of standard five yearly reviews carried out on all NDPBs. These reviews examine, first, the reasons for having the NDPB. They ask whether the functions performed are necessary for the achievement of Government policies and the scope for abolition, transfer of the functions to other bodies, rationalisation, privatisation or simply continuation on the present basis. In this case the review has also examined the scope for co-ordination of the two bodies both between each other and with other bodies in order to ensure that maximum value for money is being obtained. The second stage of the reviews will be a detailed examination of the financial management and control systems of the NDPBs. These will not be carried out until decisions have been taken on the shape of these two bodies in the light of this consultation.

3.2 The first stage reviews of both bodies commenced in December 1997. They were undertaken at the same time because of the clear acknowledgement of the importance of technology in the future delivery of the curriculum and the potential for co-ordination between the activities of the two bodies. The reports of these prior option studies were submitted to the Department in March 1998.

Review Findings

3.3 The key findings of the two reviews were as follows. In the case of the SCCC, the reviewer recommended that both of the present functions of the SCCC continued to be required but should be delivered in a different way with a separation of the advisory and developmental functions. The advisory function should be provided by an advisory committee and another body should be established to manage the developmental function.

3.4 In the case of SCET, the key findings of the reviewer were that SCET should give a much higher priority to regular contact and consultation with its customers and stake-holders. This could be done by means of a representative council which could be integrated within a curricular advisory council to ensure educational technology becomes an established aspect of teaching and learning. It was also recommended that SCET should continue, not as an NDPB, but as a company limited by guarantee and that Departmental demands on SCET should be seen as individually costed contracts which, over time, should be opened up to competitive tender from the private sector and interested companies. Furthermore, it was suggested that a single body should have responsibility for providing advice on both the curriculum and educational technology.

3.5 The essence of these conclusions was that the advisory functions performed by both bodies were essential and should be retained. In other words there continues to be a case for national advice on the curriculum and on the delivery of teaching and learning through the use of information technology. The review also concluded that the main development functions undertaken by both bodies were important and should be retained in some form but that those of a more commercial nature might be carried out separately on a commercial basis.

3.6 The SCET review suggested that a potential conflict of interests existed when a private body was both adviser on policy and supplier. If the role that SCET currently performed was privatised this would exacerbate problems. The review, therefore, suggested that some of the functions which SCET currently performs should be expressed as contracts and progressively opened up to competitive tender.

3.7 The reviews also argued that consideration should be given to separating the advisory from the development functions of the bodies concerned.

The Government’s consideration of the reviews

3.8 The Government has considered the recommendations of both reviews against the background of certain key criteria. These are that the solution has to be effective and efficient, offer value for money and ensure that the bodies will be fully accountable. The bodies must perform functions which are essential and which could not reasonably be carried out elsewhere. Critically the functions need to meet the needs of the customers ie Government, education authorities, schools, teachers and parents and above all pupils. The bodies need to be able to support the development of national policies in education; and there should be no conflict of interest in respect of any commercial activities undertaken by these bodies.

3.9 Both the SCCC and SCET operate to some degree at arms length from Government in that both are established as free-standing companies. The key advantage of this approach is that it preserves a significant degree of independence over the nature of the advice on the curriculum provided to Government and to the education community. Consideration has been given from time to time and most recently in these latest reviews to the possibility that the advisory function of the SCCC should be brought more closely within the Scottish Education and Industry Department so that the advisory body would be seen clearly as the body which provides the Secretary of State with all advice on curricular matters.

3.10 While views on this point would be welcome, the Government considers that the present arrangement provides a greater assurance to the educational system generally that curricular advice arising from the SCCC will be independent. For that reason the Government has concluded provisionally that the relationship between SCCC and Government should stay as it is at present. Curricular advice, however, must also be authoritative and must be developed and delivered according to a clear set of priorities agreed by the SCCC and the Scottish Education and Industry Department and HM Inspectorate. These priorities will take into account the views of the bodies represented on the SCCC. The Government therefore strongly supports the reviewer’s recommendations that there should be clearer prioritisation of the work of the SCCC.

3.11 The reviewer also considered the question of the relationship between the advisory aspect of the SCCC and the development work carried out by the curricular development body. It was not clear that the curricular development work was always sufficiently in tune either with the priorities of the Council of the SCCC or with the priorities of the educational system. The priorities of other agencies in the system, notably HM Inspectorate and The Scottish Office tended to cut across SCCC Council priorities. On the other hand there are clear benefits to be had from the interaction between practical curriculum development work and the delivery of high quality curricular advice. The Government considers on balance that the advantage continues to lie in keeping these two functions together. However, as with the SCCC itself, it is extremely important that the work of curriculum development should be more effectively prioritised so that it is in line with the needs of the educational system as agreed by The Scottish Office and the SCCC together.

3.12 As for SCET there will still be a Government need for curriculum advice on educational technology and for a variety of specific tasks to be undertaken in this area. As ICT becomes an integral part of learning and teaching, the demand for educational software, suitable for Scottish education, will almost certainly increase. The Government support the view that there will remain a need for curricular advice in this area and that this could be adequately provided by a single body.

3.13 The SCET review also raised the question of the conflict of interest of SCET having both an advisory and a commercial function and of the conflict that would result from the present functions of SCET being transferred to a single company. In this area the Department would welcome the separation of advisory and commercial functions and the movement towards tendering for contracts.

Integration of SCCC and SCET

3.14 It is quite evident that over the next few years information and communications technology (ICT) will play an increasing role in helping teachers to deliver all aspects of the curriculum in Scottish schools. The Government has established a comprehensive strategy through its response to the consultation on the proposals for a National Grid for Learning and this will result in a massive growth in the availability of modern computers in both secondary and primary school, linked to the Internet. The development of a Scottish Virtual Teacher Centre will mean that up-to-date curricular materials can be made readily and immediately available to teachers through the ICT network as and when they need them. These developments are already requiring the SCCC and SCET to work more closely together. Against this background both the reviews suggest that there is a need for a solution to the management of curriculum advice and development which will integrate the work of both bodies for the benefit of Scottish education.

4. Options

4.1 Against the background of all these considerations there are three key options for the future of the SCCC and SCET on which the Government would be grateful for views.

Option 1

4.2 No substantial change. This option would be to retain both the SCCC and SCET as separate bodies on broadly their present remits. Their remits would be adapted in order to avoid any duplication of functions, to facilitate joint working, and to ensure that the priorities of both were more closely in tune with Government policy and the requirements of the educational system while retaining the independence consistent with their advisory roles.

4.3 The key benefit of this option is that it would provide continuity and stability and avoid the costs and uncertainties of any restructuring. Both bodies could build upon recent development and improvement and both could focus more closely on agreed priorities. The SCCC and SCET are well established bodies with rather different cultures and financial regimes and this option would in theory enable them to focus on their particular tasks.

4.4 On the other hand, this option avoids a clear opportunity to rationalise curriculum development in Scotland bringing together both overall policy advice on the curriculum together with the delivery of both paper based and computer based curricular material. While both bodies make a major and different contribution there is an underlying coherence in their objectives which is driving them together. Perpetuating the present system would also lose an opportunity for delivering better value for money.

Option 2

4.5 The second option is to merge the SCCC and SCET into one public body. This would enhance both the advisory and development capacity of the system by bringing together expertise in the development of the curriculum with expertise in its delivery within one accountable management framework. Thereafter, a programme of change would be implemented gradually to divest the new body of those of its commercial activities, which would be more appropriately undertaken elsewhere.

4.6 This option would ensure that existing expertise could be retained and developed, thus providing continuity. In addition, an independent source of advice to Government on the curriculum would be retained. A single body would be able to advise on all curriculum matters covering the age range of 3 to 18 avoiding duplication of functions. This is an important consideration given the increasing tendency for work related to the curriculum to involve educational technology. The structure would make it more likely that curriculum materials would be developed with modern technology in mind.

4.7 This option would also have the advantage of reducing the number of NDPBs and would ensure that the resources available could be used to the maximum benefit of the Scottish education system

4.8 The main disadvantage of this option is simply that it would bring with it the practical difficulties associated with any organisational change such as staff, accommodation and corporate governance. It is also important to be aware of the added value which both bodies can provide in the material they deliver to the classroom. The benefits in the classroom of both bodies must be maintained and substantially enhanced in any changed approach. There exists the danger that a larger body would not be able to give detailed consideration to a wide variety of issues and some things might, therefore, slip off the agenda or receive inadequate scrutiny.

Option 3

4.9 The third option would be to merge the SCCC and SCET as in Option2 but to separate out the advisory role of both organisations and to create a separate advisory body. There would thus be one national advisory body and one national agency for the development and delivery of the curriculum.

4.10 The argument in favour of keeping advisory and development functions together is set out briefly in paragraph3.11 above. This is principally that through its direct responsibility for development work the advisory body has an important contact with the system and a basis for providing and developing good advice. Separating advisory and development work would ensure that there was a wholly separate and independent source of curricular advice. It would avoid any possibility of conflict of interest between advisory and development functions. It would, however, be potentially costly and would leave a more complex structure. The Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum was created initially because its predecessor, which was formerly only an advisory body, had found that it required curriculum development support in order to carry out its function effectively. This arrangement was formalised and properly organised when the SCCC was created. It seems unlikely that the case for a coherent advisory and developmental body has disappeared. What is important is that in future it should work on the basis of a clear remit and agreed priorities.

5. Question for Consultation

5.1 Do respondents agree that there should continue to be a curricular advisory function on the model of the SCCC organised together with a curricular development service?

5.2 Do you consider that the development of ICT and curriculum materials for Scottish schools is sufficiently integrated at present?

5.3 Do you consider that the work currently being done by each of the existing bodies, SCCC and SCET, involves an element of duplication or overlap?

5.4 Do you think therefore that there would be advantage in general advice on the curriculum and advice on educational technology being located within one body?

5.5 Are there any other options for the future of the two NDPBs that deserve consideration; if so, what are they and what would be their distinctive merits?

5.6 Does any of the options carry any risk or cost which has not already been identified?

5.7 Which of the three options would yield the greatest benefit to users of the bodies’ services, bearing in mind the potential of ICT to support curriculum delivery?

6. Consultation Process

6.1 This consultation process has been initiated as a result of changes being suggested to the institutional framework of the two bodies in question. The Government, would, therefore, welcome the views of all those with an interest in these matters. The views and comments of education authorities, schools and other educational bodies would be particularly welcome. Although questions have been included to assist you to respond to this consultation paper, This should not, however, limit any other comments which you may wish to make.

6.2 As mentioned previously, interested individuals and organisations are invited to submit their comments by no later than 30November 1998 to this address:
Mrs S Tait,
Scottish Office Education and Industry Department,
Area 2A/29,
Victoria Quay,
Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ.
In line with normal practice, the Department is prepared to make available to members of the public, on request, copies of the responses to this consultation paper. If any respondents wish their comments to be excluded from this arrangement they should clearly mark them to indicate this and their confidentiality will be strictly respected.

6.3 After the deadline for the consultation period noted above, all of the responses received by that date will be fully considered by the Department. A report summarising the outcome of the consultation and the decision on the future of SCCC and SCET will be produced and published in January 1999.

Next Stage

6.4 After this consultation has been completed the second stage of the financial management review will be put in hand. It will consider the financial implications of the preferred option and will review the NDPB status of the body or bodies. It will also consider other financial issues including the future staffing requirements and location of the body/bodies; and the detailed arrangements for financial management and corporate governance.

The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department
October 1998