5. Considerations for the future of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence
This chapter reviews the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) and provides concrete recommendations for Scotland (United Kingdom) to consider taking on board following ten years of experience with the implementation of CfE in schools. It suggests that the next steps for CfE need to focus on students and their learning progress. This implies reviewing how CfE is consistently providing learning opportunities through the Senior Phase; clarifying ownership of CfE and regularity in responsibilities and communication; defining a stable institutionalised curriculum review process and an aligned assessment system; and gathering consistent data to monitor progress.
The active developments of the Scottish education system, its structure and performance, and the unexpected impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on society, the economy and education, provide a dynamic background to this OECD review.
While Scotland’s results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) followed the OECD country averages and declined between 2009 and 2015, they remained stable between 2015 and 2018. New evidence from PISA 2018 showed Scottish students were among the top performers in central 21st century abilities, including their capacity to engage with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds significantly improved their performance. Attainment and positive destinations of school leavers and other indicators linked to Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) also progressed in recent years.
Students are engaged in learning through Curriculum for Excellence, which started rolling out in schools in 2010. CfE aims to provide a holistic approach to learning, to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes. Based on a common framework, schools and their teachers have the responsibility to design their own curriculum. The government introduced a range of policies and strategies to support schools, teachers, and the education system with CfE, and to drive system performance to higher levels. Ten years after its first implementation across schools, a range of issues have become apparent.
How do students experience CfE and their learning as they progress through the system? The analysis undertaken for this assessment reflects on how CfE has delivered and can continue to deliver the best possible learning experience to prepare students for their future by looking at CfE and its change approach. To understand the implementation of CfE, this chapter explores the approach to implementation and how it has combined different dimensions to drive change across the system. Based on the questions below, the chapter provides a set of recommendations for action in the next stages.
How has CfE been implemented from a student perspective? Is the CfE design working well for all students as they progress through the system?
How have those shaping CfE been involved, and how can they engage most productively to continue delivering the best possible CfE?
How has the policy environment contributed to CfE reaching all schools consistently?
Has there been a clear and well-structured implementation strategy to review progress and plan the next steps?
An implementation strategy refers to the co-ordinated actions taken following an initial decision on the design of a policy for it to become a reality. The policy itself may be defined in a document that provides an overarching vision and outlines the main components. The implementation strategy needs to be targeted towards action and can be updated and adapted according to progress made or issues that may arise (Viennet and Pont, 2017[1]).
For its CfE, Scotland followed an implementation process of co-design and co-creation with education stakeholders. Table 5.1 provides an overview of the policy developments from an implementation perspective. The co-construction process has been undertaken through boards, such as the initially created Curriculum Review Group. Following the initial design of CfE, a Curriculum for Excellence Management Board was created to include key education stakeholders and review progress from a managerial perspective. The analysis of this group’s meeting minutes shows that the discussions consisted mainly in progress updates in the various allocated tasks, but not in detecting challenges in CfE implementation, nor suggesting concrete solutions. In 2012, after implementing CfE in schools started in 2010, a specific implementation group was created under the CfE Management Board. This group focused on the implementation of CfE until its dissolution in 2017, when it was replaced by the Curriculum and Assessment Board (CAB). The CAB meets regularly to review curriculum and assessment progress in relation to CfE and beyond. It undertakes analysis, inquiries and provides advice to the Scottish Government on emerging practice.
This CfE implementation process followed a clear path in its inception, with the preparation of all the materials for implementation in schools from 2010. As schools had to implement the curriculum, the Scottish Government published materials and provided support based on advice from the CAB and others bodies. Following the publication of the Building the Curriculum series, however, the system adopted a somewhat ad hoc approach to CfE implementation and review. The material produced to support implementation came from various sources that were not always aligned, and lost coherence, until the Statement for Practitioners was published for clarification purposes in 2016.
The Scottish approach did not plan for a formal review of the CfE framework, although such a review cycle is common practice in curriculum policy in other education systems. The review conducted by the OECD in 2015 provided valuable insight about Scottish education, but its focus on CfE was solely in Broad General Education (BGE). What is more, an externally-led review, while useful, can only support the processes of internal review that most systems have in place for large-scale curriculum initiatives. Shaping and implementing education policy is always complex due to changes in governments and governance; the large number of stakeholders involved; and the long timespan associated with the implementation of education policy relative to other areas of public policy (OECD, 2020[3]).
The vision of CfE has always been powerful, and the four capacities to be developed by all students offer a convincing set of success indicators for CfE. Complex competencies, such as the four capacities, can be extremely challenging to measure, however. It might be for this reason that initially, there was no long-term strategy established or metrics defined to evaluate progress with CfE implementation. Various policies introduced since CfE have addressed this initial gap to some degree. The Learner Journey review highlighted some of the impacts of CfE, and the NIF set a framework that could integrate indicators to understand progress with CfE. During the review meetings, the OECD team often heard that CfE was a philosophy rather than a curriculum policy. The lack of a clear implementation and evaluation strategy could have contributed to this thinking.
In 2016, following the OECD review of the Scottish education system, the Scottish Government took a series of measures to streamline, clarify and refresh CfE. These were meant to further clarify CfE and sharpen government priorities. Those measures also aimed to enhance understanding of progress in a range of areas highlighted in CfE and the equity and quality framework for action. More supports and guidance were offered to schools; and additional information and research were produced on progress made with CfE.
Many stakeholders are involved in analysis and reviews of CfE, bringing numerous perspectives to the table. From the OECD team’s school visits, it was evident that CfE was implemented and consolidated in schools, especially through BGE. According to stakeholders, the intended learning is in place, and schools have been growing more confident in adopting CfE to match their learners’ needs. There has been clarity on the four capacities and the objectives, but these have also been mixed with new priorities that may not align with CfE. As policy messages evolve, there is a risk that the focus on CfE disappears, risking that schools lose track of the overall coherence between CfE and the rest of the school improvement initiatives. Although Scotland’s various school improvement initiatives are important, there is a need for coherence, for an organising structure, which CfE offers but can only deliver if it remains in focus.
CfE has been underway for ten years at the time of writing this report. A traditional policy implementation strategy is not what is needed. Rather, it would be valuable if Scotland developed a clear concept of where CfE needs to go and what actions need to be taken, so education in Scotland continues helping all young people learn, develop their resilience and thrive in the 21st century. It is unclear whether the CAB or any other system leader has a clear long-term strategy in relation to CfE or is reviewing its evolution in light of current developments and research in education more broadly. Having a longer-term strategy for CfE, for its revision if needed, with defined responsibilities and institutions that are stable and prepared for shaping the next steps would be an asset to CfE and the Scottish Government. Such a strategic and institutional development would also support policy alignment for schools and a coherent vision of student learning from ages 3 to 18 years. For the next steps, it will be important to develop a shared understanding of CfE’s contributions to effective student learning and well-being and to set up a policy-making and implementation process for CfE that is stable and has stakeholder support.
The previous chapters pointed to Scotland’s considerable achievements with CfE and to notable progress since 2015. The analysis also raised several issues that should be tackled for schools across the country to continue successful enactment of CfE, and for students to have a coherent learning trajectory from ages 3 to 18 that consolidates the four capacities consistently and prepares students for their future.
A bold initiative requiring a focus on the learner’s journey
CfE as a policy was a bold initiative in its inception that has progressed and reached schools across Scotland. CfE’s vision to achieve excellence for all students, embodied in the four capacities, is widely shared by stakeholders. Although initially developed in 2002-04, the vision remains relevant for its bold, future-oriented approach and continues to be an inspiring example equated with good practice internationally. Anecdotal evidence and international surveys point to some success in the impact CfE is having on learners’ experiences, attitudes and outcomes, even if there is limited evaluation data at the level of Scotland’s system. The emphasis on school-based curriculum design results in a wide variety of practices between schools and classrooms, which is positive when it allows teaching to respond to students’ needs and ensure all can succeed. The attainment gap also appears to have somewhat decreased over the last decade.
The 20 years since the formulation of CfE have been marked by accelerated social, cultural and technological changes in Scotland and beyond. Two decades of educational research have given rise to new insights into how best to support student learning and into the kind of knowledge, skills and attitudes students need to succeed and progress as learners. That CfE has stood the test of time and remains influential in curriculum policies across the globe is a testament to the strength and future focus of the original vision. It will remain relevant for Scotland and beyond if the leaders and stakeholders responsible for CfE look ahead to the next decades, informed by the insights from implementation from the last two decades.
CfE’s complex framework works well in most schools in Broad General Education (for learners aged 3 to 15 years) and for learners taking Advanced Highers, where the concepts, pedagogical and learning approaches are coherent, and the implemented school curriculum appears consistent with policy intentions. The OECD team observed that knowledge still plays a key role in schools’ curricula, and more prominently in the Senior Phase than in BGE. However, there is some ambiguity about the role of knowledge in a 21st century curriculum framework. Twenty years ago, many school systems adopted curricula that emphasised skills as a counterbalance to more traditional emphases on lists of “content” to be covered. The focus on these 21st century skills was also reflected in assessment reforms. In recent years, education systems – including Scotland’s – have begun to consider how best to ensure that all students have access to 21st century knowledge and ways of knowing that support future learning and the development of metacognition. As a result, adjustments might be needed both in the concepts of CfE and the tools to put them into practice. What is more, the structure, learning practices and assessment approaches in the Senior Phase need adapting to be consistent with CfE’s vision, and to allow for the smooth curriculum experience promised to learners from age 3 until the age of 18. Fundamental issues in the design of CfE for this phase need addressing, such as the balance between breadth and depth of learning, the role of knowledge, student choice, and alignment with student assessment for qualifications.
Teachers are well-trained and respected professionals in Scotland, and school leaders have developed strong pedagogical leadership capacities. In general, both teachers and school leaders are committed to varied teaching approaches for student learning and have proven their ability to develop schools’ own curriculum with some examples of excellent practice. Curriculum design and continuous improvement in teaching and pedagogical leadership require time and professional investment, which schools can only develop with continuous support from the system.
Towards a shared ownership of Curriculum for Excellence
Stakeholder engagement is at the heart of Curriculum for Excellence. Significant efforts were made to engage stakeholders throughout CfE’s lifecycle, which contributed to wide support for CfE as a direction for Scottish education. Consultation and collaboration are at the core of CfE processes, as much in policy design as in curriculum planning, development and enactment. There seems to be a gap, however, between stakeholders’ intense involvement and the impact of these views on effective enhancements to CfE implementation. Learners’ input, in particular, does not appear to be taken into account enough in decision making, although Scotland is committed to consulting its youth. More generally, greater clarity is needed in the purpose of stakeholder engagement initiatives around CfE, and consistency in the use and impact of stakeholders’ input.
The great degree of stakeholder involvement around CfE created the conditions for shared ownership and wide support of CfE’s vision. Stakeholders agree that schools and the profession should hold responsibility for the conception, implementation and outcomes of their own curricula, provided the rest of the system fulfils their own responsibilities to support schools and the profession within a clear policy framework. At the same time, CfE ownership was most often described as fragmented, with many owners lacking clarity about their responsibilities. Transparency in the division of responsibilities among stakeholders is a necessary condition for policy success in a system that promotes shared responsibility of its curriculum.
Scotland successfully developed an education language to support the philosophy of CfE that made its way into daily discussions of education policy makers, teachers and learners alike thanks to communication efforts by system leaders. CfE allows for flexibility in school curricula, so it was pivotal to ensure a shared understanding of CfE’s vision and policy objectives. However, the constant production and recycling of documentation was often described as “overwhelming” by practitioners, and the terminology used was deemed too technical and lent itself to too much interpretation.
Continuing efforts towards alignment
The originality of CfE at the time of its development continues to influence international curriculum policy. Affording autonomy at the school level within a central framework, an innovation that CfE was among the first to undertake at the turn of the millennium, is now widely used as a curriculum design principle. Scotland made considerable progress in developing and supporting teachers’ capacity to be curriculum makers, and the capacity of school leaders to lead the process of curriculum in their schools. This work has become more challenging for schools, given the need to respond to multiple new initiatives at local and national levels. A tension exists between Scotland’s comparatively high rate of teachers’ class contact time and the expectations for teachers to lead and plan curricula locally.
Other education policies were developed to build a system around the innovative philosophy brought by CfE: a pillar for what and how children learn (CfE), a pillar to support children’s well-being (Getting it right for every child, GIRFEC) and a pillar to support young people into meaningful work (Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy, DYW). Additional initiatives were introduced, such as the Scottish Attainment Challenge in 2015, the National Improvement Framework (NIF) in 2016, the Regional Improvement Collaboratives (RICs) in 2017, and the Joint Agreement on an Empowered System in 2019. Work remains on getting the policies in place that ensure the right balance between CfE autonomy and equity for students, and on aligning and simplifying the many frameworks and strategies for schools.
Early policy developments around CfE promised to align student assessment, qualification practices and system evaluation to the philosophy of CfE. The comprehensive Framework for Assessment designed in 2010 was hailed around the world as an exemplar with a clear focus on the centrality of the learner, and new tools such as the low-stakes Scottish National Standardised Assessments (SNSA) and revised national courses for qualifications were developed. Despite attempts to reform qualifications, misalignment between the aspirations of CfE and the system of qualifications has become a barrier to the implementation of CfE in secondary education. In addition, the data generated by current system monitoring and evaluation appear limited and do not provide the evidence to fully support and inform the future development of CfE.
Education is traditionally a source of pride in Scotland, which shows in the broad commitment to CfE and to educational excellence for all. It has been granted great importance in the political debate to a degree that would be the envy of many an education system. This importance has sometimes translated into a busy system at risk of policy and institutional overload. The centrality of education in the political debate allied with the absence of an identified cycle of policy review for CfE supported by robust data and evidence results in a reactive and oftentimes political approach, which is not the most efficient way to address issues with CfE and its implementation.
An adaptable approach to implementation
The implementation of CfE has followed a particular path to change without a long-term strategy. The Curriculum and Assessment Board and its predecessor provided a platform to engage many stakeholders, gather input and feedback and develop shared agreements on progress and challenges. It allowed for responsiveness to the challenges raised regarding CfE implementation. The absence of a clearly structured implementation strategy gave schools and local authorities significant freedom and autonomy to design and shape CfE’s developments, possibly building capacity on the ground. Efforts were made to communicate about CfE and its developments, but in an ad hoc manner involving many documents, reports, supporting materials, without a clear sequence of events.
For the next steps, it will be important to develop a shared understanding of CfE’s contributions to effective student learning and well-being and to set up a policy-making and implementation process for CfE that is stable and trusted by stakeholders. The suggestions proposed below bring together different dimensions to guide the actions of education stakeholders and institutions to consolidate high-quality learning experiences for students in Scotland. The next steps will require refining them from an actionable perspective into a coherent strategy: what needs to be done, by whom, when, and how will it be measured.
Schools in Scotland have been quite successful in implementing CfE and are willing to make changes where challenges remain. CfE is well known and well supported by all those interviewed. It has been developed and improved through a co-design process. While they cannot be attributed directly to the latest reforms, results in global competences of 15-year-old students in PISA could be related to CfE and its broader concepts included in the four capacities. The NIF also shows progress in recent years in a number of indicators related to CfE. CfE also reflects a strong curriculum policy that has given education professionals agency to shape it and enact it in order to adapt to schools’ and students’ needs. With the first student cohorts having completed their education under CfE, and the experience gained, it is a good opportunity to review practice. It is common across high-performing education systems to review curriculum frameworks regularly, as Japan and Finland do every ten years. It is suggested that students’ learning experiences and trajectories should be the focus to define the next steps of CfE’s implementation.
Recommendation 1. Balance Curriculum for Excellence so students can fully benefit from a coherent learning experience from ages 3 to 18 years
1.1. Re-assess CfE’s aspirational vision against emerging trends in education
Scotland should re-examine CfE’s aspirational vision in meaning and practice to take account of developments in education and society over the past two decades, along with emerging trends. The core message of CfE remains relevant and inspirational for its bold, future-oriented approach. It has served as an example to many other countries, and its key message strongly resembles the global vision on education as expressed in the Education 2030 vision of the OECD (the Learning Compass), developed through research and peer exchanges. Scotland worked to refresh the narrative around CfE and develop its benchmarks. However, there still seem to be mismatches between the vision and some of CfE’s building blocks. CfE was characterised to the OECD team as a “clash between 19th century assessment and 21st century curriculum”, which seems to have contributed to the evolution of several interpretations of CfE’s vision. Moreover, although CfE remains future-oriented in spirit, it is important to acknowledge the changes that have occurred both in education and society since CfE’s inception.
Scotland could first consider updates to some of its vision’s core elements and their implications for practice. Re-examining the vision after a full cycle of practice could help update and adjust core elements in light of over ten years of curriculum design and implementation in Scotland, also taking into account developments in curriculum research and education in general. This exercise needs to be different in nature and outcome from the production of the “Refreshed narrative of CfE”. What lessons learnt from implementation and curriculum research might help adjust the vision to fit the ambitions of CfE even better 20 years on? Dialogues between various stakeholders might help clarify and simplify the core philosophy, confirm support, and identify and sharpen the understanding of persistent inconsistencies between ideals and practices. For example, efforts to reduce the attainment gap will not be possible solely through schooling and CfE in particular, as other socio-economic factors influence learner outcomes. It will require broader coalitions with welfare, housing and health policy, for example.
An important issue for clarification in the vision regards the role of knowledge in a 21st century curriculum such as CfE. It seems that the often-criticised lack of harmony between CfE’s vision and the programme for the Senior Phase is partly due to the unclear position of knowledge in the four capacities. The role of knowledge in CfE should be made more explicit as part of the vision and the tools to operationalise it (such as the attributes and capabilities of the four capacities, and the “Experiences and Outcomes”). Knowledge could be better integrated into the capabilities and attributes of the “successful learner” capacity. This would allow the fundamental capacity to not only refer to becoming a successful learner in terms of meta-skills, but also to acquiring a solid knowledge base including the four types of knowledge (disciplinary, interdisciplinary, epistemic and procedural); to engage learners with ways of knowing (Boyd, 2019[4]) within and across disciplines; and to strengthen them in their further studies, work and overall development.
Clarifications are also needed around the concept of knowledge itself, recognising that knowledge goes beyond disciplines and subjects; as well as around the way knowledge integrates with skills and attitudes (see the concept of competencies as defined in the OECD’s Learning Compass) (OECD, 2019[5]); and with the Scottish capabilities and attributes. Clarifying the role of knowledge in the vision of CfE is the first step to strengthen the coherence of CfE. This will also help re-align learning through BGE and the Senior Phase and support better progression and transition for learners. It will help correct imbalances between breadth and depth of learning (see also Recommendations 1.2. and 1.3.). This is possibly the focus for a first review as part of the structured review cycle (see Recommendation 3.4 below).
It is also important to recognise that the broad aims of CfE and the four purposes require considering the influence of the wider context in their accomplishment. Scotland should define indicators or a “matrix of success” aligned to the vision and four capacities to help understand students’ progress across all four capacities. In addition to the National Improvement Framework’s measures of literacy and numeracy, other metrics informing progress on the four capacities are necessary, especially around health and well-being, enjoyment of learning and other key competencies. Although qualifications should remain one of the key indicators of this process, new metrics, along with new data collection tools (see Recommendation 3.3) and a shift in the communication strategy, will create a better understanding of students’ progress with CfE and provide a more complete picture.
1.2. Find a better balance between breadth and depth of learning throughout CfE
The aspirations for broad and rich (or “deep”) education for all learners should remain a strength of the Scottish education system. Scotland should find a better balance between breadth and depth of learning throughout CfE to deliver on its commitment to provide all learners with a rich learning experience throughout school education. Making the role of knowledge in CfE more explicit as part of the vision (see Recommendation 1.1) will start the conversation on breadth and depth of learning, but additional decisions are needed at several levels regarding the design of CfE. Scotland could consider how the design of CfE can better help learners consolidate a common base of knowledge, skills and attitudes by the end of BGE, and nurture and hone this base for them to progress seamlessly through the Senior Phase and the choices its offers.
CfE should first and foremost aim to develop a broad range of knowledge, skills and attitudes (taken together in “competencies”) as a common foundation for all students during BGE. More specialisation can come later in upper-secondary education. Having said that, there is a tension between breadth and depth of learning new knowledge: rich learning also implies “depth” of understanding, to avoid the internationally criticised “ocean-wide, inch-deep” approaches. A possible compromise to finding a balance between breadth and depth of learning would be to build upon CfE’s existing broader learning areas in general education, while later in secondary education, discipline-based subjects or work-focused courses become gradually more prominent. In the Senior Phase, when the number of subjects has decreased and once more time per subject is allowed, subjects should show their own merit, but also demonstrate their value in contributing to understanding and skills formation in interdisciplinary domains, themes and projects. Such an approach reflects the contemporary idea of equipping youngsters with a T-profile to prepare them for a range of challenges in further studies, work and life: a combination of strong basic skills in literacy and numeracy plus a broad, interdisciplinary foundation of competencies (the T’s horizontal bar), combined with deeper, more specialised disciplinary knowledge (the T’s vertical leg). Such subject knowledge should then focus less on the reproduction of facts to be memorised and more on the understanding of disciplinary core ideas and cross-cutting concepts, and also pay attention to characteristic ways of thinking and acting within subject-related professional practices.
A clear conclusion from current debates in Scotland is that breadth of learning cannot be equated with maximising the number of subjects a learner takes. A focus on adding subjects or themes at the school or central level, from which students would then have to choose, does not create a “broad” curriculum. There is, therefore, a need for processes to select, update, prioritise and combine learning aims and contents that give coherence and consistency to student learning trajectories. These processes should make clear and consistent distinctions in curriculum decisions and choices at the system, school and classroom level. In part, the selection, updating, prioritising and combining should be agreed upon as part of a structured review cycle of the CfE framework guided by the need to provide consistency of depth and breadth of learning for students, rather than by a selection of courses or subjects. For example, decisions could be made at this central level about the learning goals and contents of a limited number of core subjects or learning areas that all students would need to study over CfE levels and that would form the basis of progression to the full range of subjects in the Senior Phase. Some of these choices are better left to schools, teachers and learners (and their parents to a certain extent) to allow for flexible choices and variation in curriculum provision. An approach that reflects the principle of subsidiarity is suited to this process. Scotland’s intentions for the whole system should be stated clearly and provided in a simple, clear and precise framework; schools should then be able to add and elaborate on this framework; and stimulate specifications of the “what” and “how” of teaching and learning during classroom enactment.
Following the subsidiarity approach, some guidance should be developed around the role of knowledge and ways of knowing (Boyd, 2019[4]), to help schools and teachers find a balance between breadth and depth of learning. The entitlements and four capacities of the current framework suggest that CfE aims to provide solid foundations for the essential areas of literacy and numeracy and also give ample attention to health and well-being as part of all students’ learning experience. Moreover, the CfE framework also provides that all students need a broad offering of learning areas during BGE, while the Senior Phase offers possibilities to specialise. In order to guarantee that this progression is effective and coherent for all students, some common guidance is needed to help schools. At the central level, Scotland might consider refreshing the design of learning areas in BGE to better articulate the knowledge necessary at each stage and by the end of BGE, for all learners to develop broader competencies to prepare for deeper learning and specialisation in the Senior Phase and beyond.
To provide more detail without drifting towards strict specification in learning areas, it may be a helpful first step to formulate big ideas, as a growing number of education systems have been developing. Systems such as British Columbia (Canada), Korea, Norway and Singapore have been selecting broad overarching themes that relate to a number of subjects within curriculum areas of learning. Those key concepts or “big ideas” help ensure overall coherence in the curriculum and thus create criteria for what content should be included and what should be omitted (OECD, 2020[6]). Better defining and using big ideas should help keep BGE broad and bring additional guarantees that BGE builds a strong foundation of knowledge, skills and attitudes common for all learners, beyond just literacy, numeracy, health and well-being. Big ideas could also help better organise learning and its progression from ages 3 to 18.
Overall, Scotland might consider creating guidance about the elements of knowledge to prioritise, and how to select and update and integrate them more clearly in curriculum areas. Guidance on how knowledge might focus on the knowledge and skills needed to progress to and succeed in the next level or phase of education. This guidance should be designed by teams of practitioners, in close co-operation with researchers and other stakeholders, with system leaders and curriculum experts facilitating the work. Teams of teachers from schools or school clusters could contribute and discuss their own knowledge priorities and how they are integrated across the four capacities and explain how they choose suitable pedagogical approaches. These contributions from practitioners should form the basis of CfE guidance on knowledge selection, prioritisation and update, rather than prescriptions “from above”. Such a process should use and stimulate horizontal professional collaboration and peer learning to design guidance based on practitioners’ experience and input from curriculum experts. Collaboration with external researchers is indeed advisable to increase the quality of those approaches.
1.3. Adapt the Senior Phase to match the vision of CfE
Scotland could consider adapting the pedagogical and assessment practices and the structure of learning pathways in the Senior Phase to enhance learners’ experience of upper-secondary education in line with the aspirations of CfE’s four capacities. While re-assessing and perhaps readjusting the CfE vision will lessen the mismatches between the Senior Phase and the vision of CfE, it will also help to bridge the gap that students face in their transition from BGE to the Senior Phase. In particular, the adjustments should include considerations on the role of knowledge in the vision of CfE, emphasising its importance for learning along with skills and broader competencies, and clarifying its particular role in 21st century curricula (as opposed to traditional curriculum models). This would also contribute to correcting imbalances between breadth and depth present in the Senior Phase. In addition, challenges exist for curriculum and subsequent assessment re-design in the Senior Phase, which should be better integrated in the CfE framework. This task needs broad and active involvement of representatives from further and higher education and from the world of work. Without addressing these challenges, the practices in the Senior Phase may continue to lag in the essential curriculum components (aims, pedagogy and assessment) and continue to have a counterproductive influence on Broad General Education.
First, Scotland needs to create more coherence and alignment within the Senior Phase, between the curricular vision, learning goals, pedagogy and assessment approaches. It should consider reviewing the coherence of CfE enactment for learners aged 15 to 18 years, as the qualifications focus the attention on “traditional” exam- and memory-based assessment, and limit the wider purpose and scope of CfE. Scotland may also reflect on the range of learning activities that appear narrow, with more “traditional” instructional patterns and an over-reliance on course and disciplinary knowledge coverage; as well as on the ambiguity on issues of student choice and breadth of learning in relation to the number of subjects, given that many subjects lack time for going into depth. Scotland may consider building on the experience and reasonable coherence existing in CfE for learners aged 3 to 15 years (as well as in Advanced Higher courses), where learning activities seem in line with the vision, and there is a commitment to varied instructional practices. Examples may be taken from the experience of schools that seem to be able to tailor the curriculum to students’ needs through the high quality of teachers, educational leadership and local and regional support for schools and professionals.
In addition, the approach to student assessment and the nature of the learning experience in the classroom will not change in the Senior Phase unless the approach to the assessment of qualifications is fully aligned to match CfE ambitions. At this point, it may be useful to consider a range of options that could even be piloted for the overall approach to student assessment:
more portfolio assessment approaches, with rubrics that consider the entire curriculum spirit (in particular, the four capacities)
more emphasis on flexible, formative and continuous assessment components than is currently the case (current emphasis is strong on all-in-one final, summative exam events even if other components exist)
more use of digital opportunities for feedback and feedforward
maintaining (even strengthening) a strong role for teacher judgements with appropriate, manageable and cost-effective means of moderation.
Second, the Senior Phase needs to offer a clear structure for the diversity of pathways it offers to learners. The OECD team recognises Scotland’s numerous efforts to diversify learning experiences in the Senior Phase, seeking variety in the choice of pathways, subject specialisation, and qualifications offered to students, which aligns well with CfE ambitions. A possibility to clarify the structure of the Senior Phase, without restricting its diversity, could be to define a number of typical pathways or profiles for upper-secondary education with a limited number of compulsory courses, specialisation courses, and room for additional or optional units. These should be designed taking into account the need for coherence for students in their learning pathways of CfE from ages 3 to 18 years. Schools’ curriculum and timetables within a school should allow for a different student to take the same course, either as a specialisation part of one’s profile, or as another’s optional course. Such a structure could help students and their parents better understand and navigate the choice of subjects and qualifications, allowing students both to take coherent bundles of courses and to design their own pathway as they see fit. To explore this or other feasible re-design alternatives for the Senior Phase, a wide spectrum of stakeholders, experts and partners from various fields should be involved in a collaborative process.
As a source of inspiration for this process, the conclusions from a recent comparative study on upper-secondary education across nine jurisdictions (O’Donnell, 2018[7]) provides some food for thought for Scotland to enhance the Senior Phase experience. The study supports Scotland’s ambitions for its Senior Phase, as it highlights that upper-secondary education systems do not aim for a one-size-fits-all offer but rather to provide students with a range of options with a view to suiting their future destination and specific demands for upper-secondary alternatives to traditional academic pathways.
Other conclusions should further inspire Scotland to enhance the Senior Phase. First, it appears that upper- secondary education systems usually work with defined pathways broadly split between academic, vocational, and in-between tracks to provide some structure to student choice. Although the curriculum is determined by students’ choice of pathway, the study of some compulsory subjects is usually a requirement for completion of upper-secondary courses. Bridging programmes to allow more permeability between tracks are developing, which lessen the weight of choice for students. Upper-secondary curricula and assessment systems are closely interwoven and interdependent, and official records of achievement, in addition to certificates, are a feature of this phase, serving the needs of students first, but also of future employers and educational institutions. Finally, the comparison points out that links between upper-secondary education and the previous and next phases of a student’s career and education are crucial. Consequently, reforms introduced in this phase can have wide-ranging implications at individual and system levels.
1.4. Continue building curricular capacity at various levels of the system using research
Scotland should continue building curricular capacity at various levels of the system using research. It should do so by developing the environment of curriculum design support around schools, including in supporting exchange and collaboration between practitioners for curriculum design and experimentation within and across schools, and collaboration between schools and universities.
With regards to the process of continuous curriculum improvement, Scotland should keep investing in curricular capacity building. The primary focus of those investments should be to strengthen the capacity for curriculum design by teachers and school leaders at local school levels through a variety of measures: time facilities; creating space for joint curriculum design and experimentation space within schools; fostering exchange and collaboration between teachers and school leaders across schools; providing school-specific support; encouraging collaboration with universities; and strengthening the curricular nature of regional networks.
Such an approach is also in line with the strategic principle of subsidiarity. Scotland should leave curricular decision making as much as possible close to practice, within a system-wide framework developed with schools and practitioners. This does not imply that schools should work in isolation from other agencies and stakeholders. Dialogue and interaction should be promoted with other system partners (teacher educators, administrators, inspectors, and the like).
In relation to capacity building at various levels and for various purposes, Scotland should intensify and co-ordinate research initiatives along various lines:
Site-specific, collaborative approaches of researchers and practitioners around curricular issues, combining (joint) teacher professional learning, classroom improvement, school development; all contributing to site-specific curricular capacity building on the ground but also to (more generic) knowledge accumulation about successful curriculum change, for example by identifying and explaining successful practices.
More system-wide monitoring on both the enacted curriculum (notably classroom practices) and the attained curriculum (student experiences, outcomes and destinations) to feed continuous improvement of curriculum policies and practices.
Both approaches should contribute to a better collective, systemic learning system, also, in view of future, more periodical curriculum reviews (see Chapter 4), and hopefully also reducing excessive politicisation and ad hoc nature of the educational debate.
Recommendation 2. Combine effective collaboration with clear roles and responsibilities
2.1. Ensure stable, purposeful and impactful stakeholder involvement with CfE
System leaders at Scotland’s national and local levels could continue encouraging the involvement of stakeholders (and in particular, students) with CfE through well-structured and clearly defined engagement initiatives. Stakeholders need to see how their contributions are used in the consultation and how their engagement informs actions and decisions. Their involvement with CfE should follow a stable and purposeful approach that results in effective contributions to decision making. Currently, the sheer number of “invited” engagement mechanisms by system leaders, and of stakeholders’ own initiatives blur the landscape, work against the effective inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making processes, and lessen the truly collaborative approach that Scotland could benefit from to enhance CfE implementation. With CfE in place for over a decade, system leaders with stakeholders should adopt a more stable and structured approach to involvement. For instance, and in keeping with Recommendation 3.4 made below about review cycles, opportunities for stakeholder involvement could be built within an overarching review cycle, which could help make stakeholders’ input more impactful.
Successful involvement requires clarity of purpose and an engagement design that reflects this purpose. Stakeholders can be involved in a myriad of objectives, ranging from information and consultation, to ongoing involvement, collaboration and empowerment, each a strong tool for both public decision makers and stakeholders, but only if chosen and designed in alignment with the purpose of engagement. For instance, one of the conclusions from Chapter 2 is to review the Senior Phase to align it with CfE ambitions. With this goal in mind, system leaders could design a large-scale review process with the goal to co-design a Senior Phase that would align with CfE ambitions. This would include at least two parts of engagement: a national consultation with the public on what they believe should be the purpose and structure of such a Senior Phase; and a series of working groups mixing (for instance) learners, teachers, school leaders, university recruitment officers and professors, employers and scholars specialised in curriculum, assessment and upper-secondary education.
The example of Ireland’s National Council on Curriculum and Assessment review proposed in Chapter 3 (Box 3.2) could serve as inspiration, although Scotland would need to design its own approach. Alongside this, the approach taken by other countries to involve students’ voices in the curriculum review process could also be considered. For instance, Finland consulted with its student population before re-designing its curriculum through a survey to which 60 000 students from lower- and upper-secondary education responded and through other channels for students from primary schools. This information helped ensure that Finland’s re-designed curriculum reflects students’ needs and that students feel engaged as agents of their own learning (OECD, 2020[3]).
Second, system leaders should also fulfil the promise of genuine stakeholder engagement and let stakeholders’ feedback, insight, and contributions to collaborative endeavour influence decision making in a transparent way. In keeping with the hypothetical example of a Senior Phase review, this would imply drawing concrete orientations from the national consultation, which would guide the working groups and the resulting Senior Phase renewal. A way to encourage stakeholders and reassure them of the genuine nature of their engagement is to explain ahead of time how their input will be used, with some degree of details, and then respect this involvement contract when the time comes to use their contributions for decision making.
2.2. Revise the division of responsibilities for CfE
Scotland’s system leaders and stakeholders could revise the current allocation of responsibility for CfE, including responsibilities for its strategic direction, its reviews and updates, and the response to schools’ needs for support with curriculum issues. To fulfil Scotland’s commitment to shared ownership of CfE, system leaders and stakeholders need to clarify the division of responsibilities and to maintain it over time. There are many different structures for curriculum policy and implementation across education systems, given the wide range of governance and institutional arrangements. Effective structures are transparent, with a clear and delineated remit, and persist over time (including through election cycles). They establish trust with stakeholders through high-quality and sustained engagement.
What does a clear division of CfE responsibilities imply? First, system leaders and stakeholders need to spell out the roles and related responsibilities that CfE calls for. This implies considering questions about key components of CfE such as:
Who is in charge of CfE’s strategic orientations and coherence?
Who is responsible for reviewing the CfE framework and keeping its key components up to date with research and societal developments?
Who takes charge of providing schools and practitioners with the support they need to design and enact their curriculum?
Who holds responsibility for offering diversified learning experiences to learners?
Currently, responses to these questions vary too widely across Scotland.
Second, duplication of responsibilities should be avoided when feasible, which could lead to the redistribution of some responsibilities to one entity or to the merging of some committees whose mandates and membership might be duplicated. In some instances, some overlap between responsibilities is unavoidable. In these cases, overlap should be minimised and structured, by specifying levels or areas of responsibilities and relationships between the various stakeholders involved. In other cases, there might be gaps in the responsibility structure, or the current responsibility holder is not the most adequate to continue supporting or implementing CfE.
Third, stakeholders who hold responsibilities should have matching capacity and resources. On several occasions, it was made clear to the OECD team that duplication of responsibilities sometimes happens because the agency or institution with the official mandate for an aspect of CfE does not have the capacity, resources or ability to fulfil its responsibilities. Once clarified, individual responsibilities must also be considered in relation to each other, and highlight what stakeholders need from others in order to fulfil their responsibility. Once an effective division of responsibilities has been clarified and possible changes have been agreed upon with stakeholders, the responsibility structure should remain unchanged for a number of years.
2.3. Structure a coherent communication strategy to support developments of CfE
System leaders should develop a communication strategy about CfE and collaborate with practitioners, scholars and other CfE stakeholders as they do so. The purpose of CfE communication is no longer, after more than a decade, to convince people to adopt a new policy. However, the policy and its implementation processes can evolve, and these evolutions need to be communicated effectively. The first step will be for system leaders to develop a strategic approach to CfE communication, planning the necessary official communications, events and other publications ahead of time and aligned with CfE developments. In this, Recommendation 3.4, proposed below, on creating structured review cycles, goes hand in hand with a more strategic approach to communication. In the case of Scotland, an effective communication strategy would offer clear messages that are simple to understand and based on educational evidence; and be coherent throughout the system, even if it involves different actors.
To be effective, communication around CfE require sharper messages and more accessible language. When developing this communication, system leaders should sustain a dialogue with the profession and key stakeholders about the language of CfE, clarifying or doing away with “technical jargon”, and agreeing on the definition of terms and revising the existing documentation through this lens. The effectiveness of the communication strategy also relies on selecting an appropriate medium and language to engage with stakeholders, as the trust vested in the communicator affects how the received information will be interpreted (Gouëdard et al., 2020[8]). This implies producing only those documents and communications that are necessary to the understanding of new initiatives, for instance.
Recommendation 3. Consolidate institutional policy processes for effective change
3.1. Provide dedicated time to lead, plan and support CfE at the school level
Scotland has made considerable progress in enhancing the quality of school leadership and in professional learning across the school system. Supporting a curriculum as ambitious as CfE into the future, and ensuring that all learners engage in and benefit from high-quality learning experiences will require sustained support for school personnel. Other recommendations in this section will be relevant in that context; better alignment and transitions and a more coherent policy environment should make for a less bureaucratic and more streamlined system for all and give school leaders more time to lead curriculum making in their own schools. While teacher workload was not raised in discussions with the OECD team, teacher time was. In that context, in support of the next phase of development of CfE, the OECD team recommends the provision of additional, dedicated and ring-fenced time for all teachers, for curriculum planning, for monitoring of student achievement and in support of moderation of assessment outcomes.
Of note, Scotland’s teachers have one of the highest rates of class contact across OECD countries. There is an obvious tension between this comparatively high rate of class contact and the expectations of CfE that teachers lead and plan curriculum locally. There are several alternatives to provide this dedicated time to teachers. Some countries, like Ireland, have reduced class contact time. Each teacher involved in curriculum planning, monitoring student achievement and moderating assessment outcomes had their class contact time reduced by 22 hours across the school year, with one additional hour per week allocated to moderation. To avoid difficulties with the provision of supply cover, an additional 670 full-time posts were allocated to the secondary sector to support that policy decision. An additional two hours were allocated on a rotating basis to teachers leading moderation processes.
Reducing class contact time in any school system makes sense only when the teaching workforce is already well qualified and has demonstrated capacity for innovation and collaboration, and when school leadership has the capacity to ensure that this scale of investment delivers improvement for learners. Another strategy could be to build upon the additional funding for teacher recruitment provided by the Scottish Government in 2020 and reserve some of the resulting additional teaching time to curriculum planning, monitoring student achievement and moderation.
3.2. Simplify policies and institutions for clarity and coherence
Scotland should consider policy and institutional simplification, including ending or combining some policy initiatives and strategic frameworks around CfE. The system shocks caused by the current pandemic provide an opportunity for simplification and consolidation so that the efforts of school and system leadership can be re-focused on student learning, which is at the heart of CfE. This simplification should extend to institutions and agencies in the education policy system in Scotland. The OECD team is conscious that many of the agencies and organisations working across education in Scotland are themselves the products of reviews or consultation processes or consequences of public sector funding challenges. However, the team believes that a tipping point has now been reached. There is a risk that some previous structural changes to support the implementation of CfE may now be a barrier to its future development. It is possible to sustain stakeholder engagement and support, and strong deliberative processes while at the same time having fewer organisations and perhaps fewer but more focused and meaningful consultation processes.
Given the high international profile of Scotland in curriculum innovation policy and research, and the need to establish clear ownership for CfE, consideration should be given to a specialist stand-alone agency responsible for curriculum (and perhaps assessment) in the future. Aware that this was a situation that existed historically in Scotland, the OECD team believes that the complexities of contemporary and future curriculum, especially as envisaged in CfE, need dedicated support and ownership. The remit for an agency of this kind could include in the short term:
updating the skills, knowledge and attitudes in the CfE framework to take account of recent and future developments, such as the OECD’s Learning Compass, for example.
identifying and articulating the balance of 21st century knowledge, skills and attitudes associated with each level that gives those moving to the next level the opportunity for successful progression and subsequent success in learning.
communicating the future direction of CfE to all stakeholders, as suggested in Recommendation 2.3.
contributing to (or leading, depending on the outcome of the assessment review) the next stage of the development of national assessment in Scotland, aligned with CfE.
In the medium to longer term, this agency would be responsible for the ongoing monitoring of the most effective balance between flexibility and prescription and between personalisation and equity. Engaging with international networks to ensure that Scotland’s curriculum is benchmarked against international development on an ongoing basis and commissioning research in support of both of these goals would also be part of the remit of this agency. A key task for this agency would need to be to periodically review CfE and its different areas of learning to ensure they are up to date to prepare students for the future.
Revisiting CfE’s vision and implementation will also imply some work related to institutional responsibilities for inspection. Historically associated with innovation in school evaluation, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) in Scotland has influenced the development of inspection in a number of school systems. A refreshed Inspectorate could focus on:
advising on, or commissioning research in and with schools, to inform school monitoring and evaluation, and system intelligence on student attainment and school quality – all of which could be used in a cycle of curriculum reform (see below)
building on current strengths in peer and self-evaluation for schools that includes CfE implementation at the school level
developing strategic distance from other organisations and agencies supporting schools that gives stakeholders, the public and the political system confidence in its independence and rigour.
As a national agency, an Inspectorate is a key policy tool for consistency and comparability across federated or devolved systems. This is an important consideration for Scotland, where the Inspectorate is currently part of Education Scotland. The need for greater assurance that national aspirations were being delivered for all children and young people was clearly evident in discussions with the OECD review team. Other education systems, such as Ireland and the Netherlands, have their Inspectorate as part of the ministry but with statutory independence and a clear regulatory and evaluation remit.
3.3. Align curriculum, qualifications and system evaluation to deliver on the commitment of Building the Curriculum 5
Aligning qualifications, system evaluation and curriculum to deliver on the commitment of Building the Curriculum 5 is essential. Scotland could first identify and develop approaches to student assessment that could be used in school and external settings at Senior Phase levels, in alignment with the four capacities and CfE philosophy. Second, Scotland could re-develop a sample-based evaluation system to collect robust and reliable data necessary to support curriculum reviews and decision making. Actions in two areas are needed to support the assessment framework outlined in 2011. The first concerns qualifications in the Senior Phase. The second concerns the commitment to ongoing monitoring of local and national progress and achievement.
The commitment made in Building the Curriculum 5 that the review of qualifications would align with CfE has not been delivered to date. For the secondary sector, in particular, the consequent absence of alignment between curriculum and assessment is the single biggest barrier to the implementation of CfE. The OECD team found complete consensus on this issue, but no enthusiasm for a root and branch review of qualifications, given the disruption to the system that would follow, and no agreement as to what a qualification system aligned with CfE would look like. The contestations in the past around the development of the qualifications as part of the CfE reforms, including difficulties with unit-level assessment and the impact on teacher workload of the quality assurance measures, remain unresolved. As time passes, these unresolved issues have become increasingly problematic for the system. The OECD team was struck by the lack of reference to the National 4 and 5 qualifications in discussions with stakeholders about assessment in the Senior Phase.
Developments in the arrangements for qualifications that allow students to access a wider variety of courses and learning opportunities either within schools, from local colleges or with other local partners were strengthened with the DYW in 2014. That all students can have access to broad learning opportunities, even alongside more coursework for academic studies, supports CfE’s emphasis on personalised learning. This development was generally viewed as positive, although some stakeholders expressed a concern that the complexity of the qualifications offering in the Senior Phase was difficult to explain to parents and learners.
However, the emergency measures that have had to be introduced in response to COVID-19 may provide some possibilities for development in the short term that could be the basis for longer-term change. A key question that would require some consideration would be whether the agency responsible for curriculum proposed above should also be responsible for assessment design for learners from ages 3 to 18. A separate body might be responsible for the regulation and quality of qualifications, currently part of the remit of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, but the development work would be undertaken alongside the development of the curriculum.
While this OECD report does not tackle in-depth the development of student assessment, a separate working paper will outline Scotland’s challenges and options to enhance student assessment and qualifications. The working paper aims to inform deliberations on how to move forward with assessment and qualifications in the Senior Phase in the future, based on a comparative perspective of student assessments. A summary of its initial findings is provided here to inform this recommendation (Stobart, forthcoming[9]):
There may be alternatives for recognising the range of achievement at the end of compulsory education to the current approach of examination certificates for subjects passed. A school profile is already in use, prepared by the school at the end of Senior 3, which could be continued into S4 and developed, for instance, into a school graduation certificate at 16. For the majority of students who stay on into post-compulsory education, the Higher, Advanced Higher and other qualifications’ results would be used in selection and progression processes.
The demands of the examination system attract criticism from students and educationalists. There is debate about whether the assessments at S4, S5 and S6 should be seen as a step-by-step “ladder” of qualifications up which students progress, or whether students should simply take a single “exit” examination at the appropriate level (for example, National 4 for school leavers; Highers for Higher Education; Advanced Highers for university entrance both inside and outside Scotland).
A broader approach to external student assessment would allow SQA to explore a wider range of assessment options, including more use of information technology to provide online examination resources and more interactive approaches; opportunities for candidates to use computers to respond; incorporation of ePortfolio and personal projects for external marking; more use of oral presentations and practicals as a way to broaden the assessment formats. Approaches allowing for fuller alignment with 21st century curricula, as in CfE, include:
As evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, these approaches also offer greater resilience where there is a major disruption. Adoption may require Scotland to further decentralise some of its assessment procedures while further developing teachers’ assessment literacy in order to expand the professional capacity of schools in assessment.
None of these recommendations requires any immediate change for schools or for SQA. In the short term, it would be business as usual in the Senior Phase. However, the setting of a timeframe for change and the generation of an evidence base, together with some of the structural changes proposed in organisations and agencies, would signal the policy direction and generate an evidence base to inform any changes.
A number of initiatives have been put in place to support the ongoing monitoring of student achievement since the introduction of CfE. Reporting on the levels has its limitations, given that they were designed to support teacher planning and judgement and not to measure national progress. Small changes in data of this kind cannot give the system the intelligence it needs to monitor the achievement of particular groups of students within the cohort. Similarly, while the census-based assessments (SNSA) are underway, the purpose and usefulness of these are already being questioned. Designed to provide data to support teacher judgement and information for system monitoring, it is questionable whether census-based assessments of this kind can serve both purposes well. The Framework for Assessment is ambitious on the kinds of monitoring needed to support CfE over time. Three priories are identified for the range of information needed: information to support an account of success at local and national levels; information that describes progress and achievement against standards and expectations; and a particular focus on supporting points of transition in the system.
The OECD team believes that there is now an urgent need for robust, reliable data to support these priorities and support wider policy and decision making, as well as the curriculum review cycle discussed below. Previous attempts at this kind of sample monitoring were not successful for a range of reasons: the tests that the SQA administered provided data only at the national level; they were administratively complex and expensive; and time-consuming for schools to administer. The experiences of other systems in recent years in building these sample-based systems that make very little demands on teachers and schools but provide extremely useful information can inform the deliberations in Scotland. These long-term monitoring arrangements allow for particular focus on under-achieving groups within the population and give rise to a dataset that can be made available to independent researchers for additional data mining and research. The arrangements in Ireland are noteworthy for their longevity and how the data continue to be used by a wide range of agencies, notably, by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in its review processes (see Box 5.1).
The long-established National Assessment of Mathematics and Reading Skills (NAMER), running in Ireland since 1972, has consistently provided data to the Irish system that has informed key decisions on a wide variety of policy priorities, such as closing the gap in literacy and numeracy attainment in high poverty schools, Irish-medium education, and the new language curriculum for primary schools. Data have been used to show the impact of initiatives and to modify and refocus as needed.
Sample-based monitoring systems of this kind require a long-term commitment and sustainable funding, as they need to outlive governments.
Source: Educational Research Centre (2021[10]), “National Assessment of Mathematics and English Reading (NAMER)”, https://www.erc.ie/programme-of-work/national-assessments [accessed on 22 March 2021].
In commissioning a programme of independent research on the impact of CfE, Scotland should consider a longitudinal cohort study, of one or both phases of the system, with a focus on the student experience of curriculum and assessment, student achievement, student engagement with learning, subject choice and equality of outcomes for a representative sample of students across different kinds of schools. Tracking the impact of curriculum review and proposed assessment changes through such a study would provide rich data to inform ongoing review and evaluation and important information on the differential impact of changes on particular groups of learners.
3.4. Develop a systematic approach to curriculum review
Scotland could consider establishing a systematic curriculum review cycle with a planned timeframe and specific review agenda, led by the specialist stand-alone agency proposed in Recommendation 3.2. Data collected through ongoing monitoring, together with independent research and intelligence from the HMIE’s inspection of education, can inform cycles that address particular aspects of CfE within a planned and specified timeframe. Such a planned and systemic approach to review might serve Scotland well, given the level of public interest in education. An agreed systematic approach would also reduce reliance on external independent reviews when controversies arise and build internal capacity for curriculum monitoring. A review cycle might also reduce the need for ongoing guidance and clarifications and give the system greater stability overall. The energy of leaders could be redirected to focus on the implementation of CfE in their schools rather than responding to the most recent update or clarification. A review cycle would support CfE in coherence with the earlier Recommendation 3.2 about granting curriculum leadership and development responsibilities to a stand-alone agency.
Moving in this direction needs to be carefully planned, as it is likely to require some organisational re-structuring so that it is clear to the system – and to the wider public – which organisation is responsible and accountable for the processes and quality of the review and the speedy implementation of the recommendations. In general, systems with specialist curriculum units or organisations assign the review responsibilities to the same agency, with some distance between the work of the review and central government to allow for clear lines of reporting and responsibility. – the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in Ireland, for example, and the Australian Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Authority. In both cases, the central government can request a review of a specific area, independently of the agreed cycle. This allows for urgent issues to be responded to quickly by a minister or council of ministers acting in the public interest without embroiling the political system in the details of a curriculum controversy.
Such a systematic, more apolitical approach is well suited to a system such as Scotland’s, where there is a high level of interest in education.
Recommendation 4. Lead the next steps for Curriculum for Excellence with a long-term view
Building on the system’s existing strengths, Scotland should consider how to take on board the recommendations in this report as a coherent package rather than individual policy actions for shaping the next steps. Leading the change process itself will require reinforcing the stability, trustworthiness and effectiveness of the decision-making processes, especially to define the next steps of CfE: what needs to be done, by whom, when and how it will be measured. On this last point, Scotland should consider setting up the metrics needed to understand progress with implementing CfE actions over the long run.
This will provide a platform for effective and sustained implementation and review of the change process and how it is actually reaching its objectives to help all learners achieve excellence. Scotland can adopt a structured and long-term approach to the ongoing implementation of CfE, which builds on the strengths of the system and the policy to tackle its challenges. The continued efforts made throughout Scotland to develop and improve CfE are a testament to the system’s long-term commitment to educational quality. The effectiveness of these efforts has been lessened, however, by their ad hoc nature and the difficulties in sustaining their coherence in the absence of a structured approach to implementation.
Planning a structured and long-term approach to CfE implementation from a central government perspective will help reinforce the policy’s internal coherence (the design and eventual review of its many building blocks) and its external coherence with other education policies. Paired with collaborative ownership of the policy, it will offer better guarantees for the sustainability of Curriculum for Excellence. In practice, the approach to CfE’s ongoing implementation can be better structured by systematically specifying the actions that need to be taken for a given development of CfE; clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each actor; agreeing with key stakeholders on a timeline; and allocating the resources necessary for completion of the actions.
Adopting a long-term focus with CfE means thinking several years down the line and keeping abreast of the emerging trends that affect education in a way that nurtures student learning and experience in Scotland. A long-term focus in the approach to CfE’s ongoing implementation avoids the trap of piecemeal policy making, and concentrates efforts on the initiatives that serve students and their learning, and reinforces the sustainability of the education system.
This report provides a set of recommendations that can be weaved together and considered for this structured approach to the future of CfE. Each recommendation points to a number of actions that should be taken to strengthen CfE and tackle its ongoing implementation challenges. However, they need to be considered as a coherent package rather than as individual policy actions. A structured approach to CfE implementation, building on the system’s existing strengths and this report’s recommendations, can help Scotland not only tackle ongoing or future challenges for CfE but also provide a platform for effective and sustained review of the change process and how it is reaching its objectives to help all learners achieve excellence.
The OECD team proposes that Scotland reviews the recommendations through an actionable lens, provided in Table 5.2, and suggests the following action plan:
1. Start by re-assessing the vision of CfE to take on board social and economic developments, emerging trends in education and up-to-date research (Recommendation 1.1).
2. Define the indicators that can support progress with the implementation and impact of CfE (Recommendations 1.1 and 1.4) and establish a communication strategy that can be updated to support CfE’s developments (Recommendation 2.3).
3. Revise the roles and responsibilities of those stakeholders involved in CfE (Recommendation 2.2). This will include defining the concrete role of the institution that should take the main responsibility for CfE (Recommendation 3.2). This institution can then establish a systematic approach to curriculum review (Recommendation 3.4) and set up consultations to explore a range of issues raised in this assessment: the balance of knowledge across the different stages of CfE (Recommendation 1.2), between breadth and depth of learning (Recommendation 1.3).
4. Work on developing the approach to stakeholder engagement with CfE ensuring stability, purpose and impact (Recommendation 2.1).
5. Work with SQA and other related institutions, including consultations, to consolidate an assessment system that aligns with the CfE vision and student learning needs (Recommendation 3.3).
6. In parallel, discussions on teacher and school leadership time and professional development needs may be organised by the Scottish Government and Education Scotland (Recommendation 3.1).
References
[4] Boyd, P. (2019), “Knowledge and ways of knowing”, Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, Vol. 6, pp. 34-37, http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/5932/1/IMPACT%20chartered%20college%20of%20teaching%20Knowledge%20and%20Ways%20of%20Knowing%20Pete%20Boyd%202019.pdf.
[10] Educational Research Centre (2021), National Assessment of Mathematics and English Reading (NAMER), https://www.erc.ie/programme-of-work/national-assessments (accessed on 30 April 2021).
[8] Gouëdard, P. et al. (2020), “Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 239, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en.
[7] O’Donnell, S. (2018), Upper Secondary Education in Nine Jurisdictions Overview Report, https://ncca.ie/media/3337/scoping-report-online-2.pdf.
[6] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[3] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[5] OECD (2019), OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Conceptual learning framework - Concept note: OECD Learning Compass 2030, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
[2] Scottish Government (2021), Curriculum for Excellence 2020-2021 - OECD review: Initial evidence pack, https://www.gov.scot/publications/oecd-independent-review-curriculum-excellence-2020-2021-initial-evidence-pack/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
[9] Stobart, G. (forthcoming), “Future of student assessment in Scotland’s upper secondary education: A comparative perspective (working title)”, OECD Education Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[1] Viennet, R. and B. Pont (2017), “Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en.