CfE Review

EIS Sceptical as Parliament Orders yet Another Review

General Secretary Larry Flanagan examines the reasoning and remit behind the recently announced Review of Curriculum for Excellence. Press comment:

EIS General Secretary Larry Flanagan said, “The Senior Phase was predicated upon achieving greater depth in learning, maintaining breadth in the curriculum, and creating parity of esteem between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ pathways. The EIS is not convinced that we have universally achieved any of these objectives, so we welcome the CfE review’s focus on these areas. The recent disproportionate discourse on annual variations in Higher performance is indicative of the fact that many people still see the senior phase as little more than an exam factory. Qualifications are important, but Education in the 21st Century needs to be about much more than simply passing tests.”

The Scottish Government has announced the remit for the OECD-led review of CfE 3-18.

Although the Scottish Parliament voted for a 3-18 review, rather than the already agreed senior phase review, the EIS is largely sceptical as to the reasoning behind the decision, which seems to have been driven by party political posturing rather than any deep desire to support the work of schools still facing austerity-driven budget cuts, excessive teacher workload, and under-resourced ASN provision.

In terms of CfE 3-15, the planned review is largely focussed on measuring progress made on the recommendations of the 2015 OECD review of the same phase.

Regarding the senior phase, the EIS successfully lobbied for this to focus on measuring progress against the original key objectives of CfE post 15: creating space for depth of learning, maintaining breadth across the curriculum, and establishing parity of esteem between “academic” and “vocational” learning and qualifications. Frankly, anyone who thinks these have been achieved is deluding themselves. In many ways we have gone backwards: for example, the two-term dash to Higher is now being replicated in a two-term dash to N5 in S4.

SQA’s handling of the removal of mandatory unit assessment has created, unnecessarily, a heavily exam-focussed qualification system which would not have been out of place in the 19th Century let alone the 21st. There has been a lot of media coverage of Higher results this year, with some relative dips being profiled – apart from the cohort, the change imposed by SQA was the single biggest variable to this year’s diet so you don’t need to be a 5As candidate - or Young Apprentice of the Year - to determine the cause of any drop in the pass rate.

The ability to address the issues teachers know are there in the senior phase, will be somewhat stymied by the timeframe required for the overarching review. It will not report until shortly before the “In many ways we have gone backwards: for example, the twoterm dash to Higher is now being replicated in a two-term dash to N5 in S4.”

2021 Scottish Parliament elections, meaning that nothing will happen until the outcome of those elections is clear, with the result that any meaningful change is unlikely before school session 2023/24!

Notwithstanding these reservations, the Institute will engage with the review process to press home the many concerns of members around the overcrowded BGE curriculum, problematic assessment approaches across all stages, the lack of professional trust within our system, inadequate provision for meeting ASN needs, inhibitors to solid design and delivery of the Senior Phase, and not least the challenge of excessive workload