Name
Kay Barnett
Janet Brown
Iain Ellis
John Edward
Tony Finn
Grant Jarvie
Alan Johnston
Terry Lanagan
Mhairi Laughlin
Bill Maxwell
Ken Muir
Christine Pollock
Duncan Simpson
Andy Smith
Others
Mike Corbett
Gillian Purves
Officials
Julie Anderson
Denise Brock
Apologies
Irene Matier
David McMurtry
Jane Peckham
CURRICULUM FOR EXCELLENCE
MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING
11 June 2013,
Clerwood House, Edinburgh
NOTE OF MEETING
LIST OF BOARD MEMBERS AND ATTENDEES
Organisation
EIS
SQA
National Parent Forum Scotland
SCIS
GTCS
Universities Scotland
Scottish Government (Chair)
ADES
College Development Network Scotland
Education Scotland
Education Scotland
ADES
Community Learning and Development Network
SLS
NASUWT
AHDS Executive
Scottish Government (Secretariat)
Education Scotland
AHDS
ITE
NASUWT
1. Welcome & apologies
1.1 Alan Johnston (AJ) welcomed Board members and thanked Tony Finn for hosting the meeting at Clerwood House. He noted that apologies had been received from David McMurtry, Jane Peckham and Irene Matier. Gillian Purves would be representing AHDS in place of Irene Matier at this meeting.

1.2 AJ noted that, due to the late distribution of papers, if Management Board members had further comments to make on any of the papers, they could submit these by e-mail over the course of that week.
2. Note and actions from meeting of 23 April 2013
2.1
Management Board members agreed the note of the April 2013 meeting.
2.2 The Management Board considered the list of actions arising from the April meeting, many of which were covered under other items on the agenda. The following updates were provided:
Update on additional support:
2.3 AJ flagged that since the Board last met, and following on from the recent EIS
Conference, there had been further debate around assessment, planning and monitoring and the impact of this on teacher workload. In light of these discussions, the Cabinet Secretary had just announced that there would be extra support materials provided and that a Working Group was being established to look specifically at reducing bureaucracy. The remit of this Group would be to: explore concerns around excessive bureaucracy in relation to the implementation of CfE; make proposals for addressing these concerns and any underlying issues; highlight best practice in securing the benefits of CfE whilst minimising bureaucracy; and where appropriate, refer any wider workload issues to the appropriate governance structures.
Management Board members were invited to give their thoughts on the work of the Group.
2.4 AJ asked Kay Barnett (KB) to give the Board an update on the results of the
EIS Primary School survey. KB explained that the survey had confirmed what they already knew, in terms of the key barriers to the successful implementation of CfE.
She told the Board that teachers were still nervous about assessment, moderation and standards and that many were frustrated at the tick box approach to assessment
– they wanted more time for meaningful discussions and a better way of capturing achievement. Therefore the EIS were still committed to the need for more time for
Primary teachers and, although grateful for the additional materials, they really needed time for teachers to engage with them.
2.5 In terms of reducing bureaucracy, KB welcomed the commitment from the
Cabinet Secretary to working with a range of stakeholders to address this. She emphasised that the EIS were committed to taking forward CfE and would continue to work with partners to address the barriers to this.
2.6 Ken Muir (KM) noted that Education Scotland were working up a comprehensive package of materials, made up of existing materials across all subjects areas at all levels, which would be available from September 2013. As regards bureaucracy and planning, he pointed out that inspectors were already being critical of schools who were doing unnecessary planning. He recognised that it had a

lot to do with people feeling their way and clarity of expectations, but acknowledged that this was taking time away from teaching.
2.7 Terry Lanagan (TL) agreed that the system could not ignore the EIS concerns and noted that at a local level there was a perception that Primary Schools were ahead of the game so the focus on the Senior Phase had meant that recently
Primary Schools had not had as much support. He also flagged that the lack supply teachers had meant that many Headteachers were now having to teach full time and were no longer able to provide guidance on issues such as assessment and moderation.
2.8 Mike Corbett (MC) added that all NASUWT debates had also been about assessment and moderation and highlighted the need to identify and share good practice already happening.
Position of Scottish Universities on Curriculum for Excellence
2.9 AJ gave the Board the following update on work to share the statements on
Curriculum for Excellence coming from Scottish Universities:

A high-level comment and links to all statements (published to date) had been provided in several places - the CfE bulletin, the NPFS newsletter, and
Education Scotland’s forthcoming CfE parental briefing. Updates such as this would continue to be provided;

All published university statements were hyperlinked on the Education
Scotland Higher Education pages;

All published statements would shortly be accessible through Engage for
Education;

Scottish Government had discussed what parents would find most helpful with
NPFS and were developing a draft summary of the high level messages – recognise that there are challenges with this (Universities Scotland had fed back that institutions had concerns (a) that the devil was in the detail so a summary may be less helpful; and (b) that positions may change so need to keep under review);

Education Scotland was also planning an event later this year (probably
October) which will specifically focus on Transitions to Higher Education;
 One of the sessions at this year’s Scottish Learning Festival to focus on the impact of CfE on universities (including admissions) so another opportunity to flag;

The Scottish Government would continue to work closely with individual universities and with Universities Scotland.
2.10 Grant Jarvie (GJ) added that Universities Scotland had been involved in this work and had taken the core messages of interest to parents from the eight statements so far and were looking at how to share them. TL noted that the statements had been very helpful so far in allaying fears about Senior Phase models and he had been encouraging his schools to share with parents. KM flagged up that there was a further Senior Phase Conversation Day planned for October looking at entry to HE, but noted of course that all young people would not be going to HE.

3. CfE Implementation Progress
3.1 Bill Maxwell (BM) introduced paper 3.1. Janet Brown (JB) flagged that risk
1 around supply teachers for backfill had been identified by local authorities and that
SQA had been meeting with TL and Christine Pollock (CP) about this. JB also pointed out an error in the paper with regard to the timing under risk 1 - the date when SQA will advise centres and education authorities of the schedule for deployment of nominees in 13/14 was July to Sept 2013 and not June 2013 as stated. As regards risk 3, BM noted that implementation was being closely monitored by Education Scotland on an ongoing basis, with appropriate support or intervention being provided as required. He pointed out that the HE statements would help with this. AJ also flagged that there was a connection with the bureaucracy issue. On risk
8, Education Scotland had been increasing their efforts around parental engagement.
3.2 As regards Senior Phase Models and Qualifications, BM told the Board that 77 Professional Focus papers had been published, that the CfE briefing papers were being well received and that there was a growing range of partnership work with local authorities in developing materials. The Virtual Campus idea was proving successful and would be used more in future. In terms of developing and sharing materials, KB noted that EIS have a role in changing the culture here
– around encouraging teachers to share their materials. TL agreed that this work was helping to change the silo mentality.
3.3 On the Senior Phase Benchmarking Tool, BM noted that there would be an update later in the agenda from Eileen Gill (EG) and Colin Sutherland (CS), but wanted to flag an issue around the need to look carefully at what information would be circulated publicly on school performance in the next year. He pointed out that the new approaches to the Senior Phase curriculum would have implications for how results should be published and that there was a need to consider how best to do this.
3.4 CP flagged that wider achievement was equally as important but that the focus was still on attainment. She emphasised the need to report on wider achievement nationally and said that North Lanarkshire Council had been reporting on wider achievement for 4 years. KB added that she had been working with Maggie
Tierney’s Team to feed into the development of the Senior Phase Benchmarking
Tool and it was committed to developing wider achievement not just attainment. She also agreed that there was a need to consider how best to report results in future.
3.5 TL asked if anyone had been engaging with SOLACE on the work they had been doing to develop a set of Education Benchmarks, as the timing of this seemed quite odd? BM agreed to raise the issue as part of the Accounts
Commission work.

3.6 KM updated the Bo ard on Educations Scotland’s work to develop some
Talking Head videos, in which Headteachers were talking about the Senior Phase models they were following and their rationale for these approaches.
3.7 On course materials, KM noted that ES were continuing to develop course materials at N4 and N5, and were also doing guidance on units at N1-3. They would be providing course materials at Higher were there had been significant changes but were putting work on Advanced Higher on hold to focus on N1-3. They would do work on AH where there had been significant change. KB flagged that EIS had been asking to what extent these course materials were being well received and would share the responses with Education Scotland. MC noted that the NASUWT had received generally positive feedback on the courses although there were some concerns about some courses. KM noted that there was a limited time for refining N4 and N5 materials but said ES was always happy to take feedback and refine where possible, although the development of N1-3, Higher and Advanced Higher would be a priority.
3.8 JB reminded the Board that the whole rationale for this was not to have a course but about supporting teachers to develop their own. KM agreed that the focus should be on pedagogy rather than a course.
Implementation Plan
3.9 BM acknowledged the fact that the Implementation Plan had just been circulated so Board Members would not be expected to provide full comment today.
He noted that the aim of the plan was to provide a summary of what national support would be provided by national bodies for practitioners - a route map of sorts. He asked for initial thoughts on content and structure.
3.10 CP said that practitioners would be familiar with the structure from previous years. She felt it would be helpful for education authorities to reflect in Improvement
Plans but too late for them to do it this year. She suggested that it would be best to send this out as soon as possible rather than wait for a final version.
3.11 KB flagged the need to be mindful of the bureaucracy issue, in particular in relation to the second column. She noted that this would depend on how it was implemented locally and not so much about the target.
3.12 It was agreed that Management Board members would come back to
Education Scotland with any additional feedback before Friday 14 June.
4. Communications & Engagement Update
4.1 Denise Brock (DB) introduced paper 4.1, in particular highlighting the following developments:

There had been a significant rise in local media reports as a result of a joint effort from Education Scotland, SQA and local authorities, with particularly good media coverage around positive inspection reports;


CfE briefings had been popular but in order to minimise costs it had been agreed that future briefings would be online only;The next briefing papers would be Parental Involvement (after the summer); Political Literacy; and
Transition to HE/ FE/ Employment;

On the SPBT work was underway with SG colleagues to develop a
Communications Strategy;

On the parental leaflet, this was being finalised and would go to all parents at the beginning of the next school session;

The NPFS nationals in a nutshell leaflets continued to be very well received.
4.2 DB also flagged that ES would be attending the National Implementation
Board at the end of June to make links with CfE.
4.3 JB emphasised the need to reinforce the message around the value of current qualifications when the exam results are published in August.
5. Community Learning and Development
Community Learning and Development Strategy
5.1 Duncan Simpson (DS) talked through paper 5.1, highlighting the following points:

That the approach to CLD was happening in different ways at different speeds across Scotland;

ES had an important role in developing CLD and encouraging practice across the country;

There were 3 important groups to get on board: CLD workers; teachers; and parents;

It was important that a strategic approach was taken in future and as such the paper proposed the establishment of a stakeholder group, comprising a broad range of CfE practitioners. It would advise Education Scotland, CLD standards Council and Management Board and ensure CLD was integrated into CfE developments.
CLD Communications Strategy
5.2 DB explained that the aim of the Communications Strategy would be to reposition CLD as for all learners, integral to CfE and for all.
5.3 The key groups to reinforce this message to were practitioners, learners and a range of providers. She noted that a pro-active communications campaign was needed, using different language for different audiences. Work would begin on this in
July and launch in August/ September. DB pointed out that there was already a rich source of materials/ examples that could be drawn upon to show how CfE was different from what went before and the importance of CLD and wider achievements.
5.4 In the discussion that followed, CP noted that she felt very strongly about this as she had seen the benefits of CLD and it was a very rich part of the curriculum.
She pointed out that BTC4 had been about this but not enough had been done about

this. CLD has been a priority in N Lanarkshire with dedicated CLD staff in the authority and a wide range of awards for wider achievement. The more CLD is mainstreamed the less risk there is in it being cut and resources redirected. She emphasised the need for CLD to be part of the Senior Phase offer, as it would widen choice (eg Asdan, Outdoor Learning, intergenerational work etc).
5.5 AJ asked if the Board felt that the proposals in these papers were enough to further develop and promote CLD in Scotland. TL noted that what CP said had reinforced the difference between authorities, as CLD had been taken out of West
Dunbartonshire schools several years back, so doesn't have a high profile in the authority. He agreed that you could not deliver the Senior Phase of CfE without it.
5.6 It was agreed that CLD could be included on the agenda for the ADES CAQ network.
5.7 DS explained that SQA had done a great deal to raise the profile of CLD and wider achievement.
5.8 Andy Smith (AS) welcomed the paper and noted that this was an increased expectation on schools. He asked if this would have any impact on inspections. BM noted that Inspectors have been looking at CLD provision in every so many secondary school inspections, which has also helped raise the profile.
5.9 GJ flagged the link with work on the Outdoor and Adventure Sports Strategy for Scotland and the role of Sportscotland.
5.10 Mhairi Laughlin (ML) asked if there might be an unintended consequence for adult learning if younger learners became a priority. DS did not think so and flagged that CLD providers had also been pushing for CfE for adult learners.
5.11 AJ noted the positive response to the papers and agree to keep revisiting position of CLD at Management Board.
6. Recent NPFS engagement activities
6.1 Due to time constraints it was agreed that Iain Ellis (IE) would provide the
Board with an e-mail update on recent work with parents following the meeting.
7. Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce
7.1 CP updated the Management Board on her work to date as part of the
Commission. She explained that it was a small group, all personally appointed and not representative of their organisations. They would be producing an interim report in September 2013 and it would be good for the Management Board to discuss.

7.2 At present they were doing fact-finding work on vocational learning in schools, as the Commission had a key aim of improving the profile of vocational education.
They had also been looking at progression from Senior Phase into FE and HE through the HNC/ Vocational route. They had received a range of presentations about college provision and were looking at how to encourage better partnerships between schools and colleges and at the way colleges work with employers to shape college provision. They had also been looking at pre-apprenticeship qualifications and employer buy in/ ownership/ sponsorship.
7.3 Sir Ian had been across Scotland speaking to schools, Chambers of
Commerce, businesses, COSLA, SFC and the focus would move to employers in
September.
7.4 AJ flagged that they were trying to secure a date for Sir Ian to speak to Board
Members and if anyone was interested to let Julie Anderson (JA) know.
7.5 CP mentioned that this would be her last Management Board meeting before she retired. AJ thanked her for all her work on the Board
8. Senior Phase Benchmarking Tool
8.1 Eileen Gill (EG) and Colin Sutherland (CS) gave the Board Members a demonstration of the tool. EG began by setting out the timing for release of the tool.
She told the Board that an ‘early adopter’ version would be released in June/ July
2013, the ‘preview edition’ in September 2013 and an updated version of this in
January to March 2014, prior to the launch of the ‘live’ tool in August 2014. EG explained that the ‘preview version’ in September 2013 would have 2013 qualifications data, as well as some data around wider achievement awards. The updated version in early 2014 would also include updated data on destinations and possibly data on stage and relative performance. The SPBT Team were currently working on developing support for the release of early adopters, looking at developing guidance, a helpdesk and then case studies. EG agreed to provide MB members with a timeline for developments.
8.2 CS gave the Board a demonstration of the dashboard with the 4 national measures, talking through the different potential uses. He highlighted the tool's ability to filter by various means such as age, ethnicity, LAC, ASN, gender and EAL. He explained that the four measures together would give a strong picture for selfevaluation for improvement.
8.3 Again it was agreed that, in light of earlier discussions under agenda item 3, there was a need to consider how results data would best be published in the coming years in light of the changing approaches to the Senior Phase curriculum.
8.4 EG explained that the main challenge now was not technical - it was how to change thinking and build capacity in the system to use data, as presented in the tool, differently. ML asked about the capacity for reporting on wider achievement and

EG explained that they were having discussions with award providers to see who would be included in the first version. It could only be awards that were SCQF rated, were in line with CfE and met and met certain technical requirements for reporting and sharing data. EG stressed that not all wider achievement awards would be in the
SPBT and there was a need to guard against the perverse incentive of only valuing those in the Tool. Local Authorities and schools should still be providing the courses that met the needs of young people regardless of them being in the Tool or not. In this regard, the SPBT was only part of the landscape along with learner profiles, inspection reports and the likes.
8.6 AJ thanked EG and CS for their very helpful presentation and noted that
Management Board Members were very happy with the direction of travel.
9. AOB
9.1 AJ asked Julie Anderson (JA) to send a post meeting summary of the agreed actions.
9.2 Board Members agreed to the online publication of the following papers from the April 2013 meeting:
Paper 3.1 – Implementation Group Report
Paper 4.1 – Communications & Engagement Update
Paper 5.1
– Position of Scottish Universities on CfE
Note of the meeting
10. Date of Next Meetings
Dates for meetings in school session 13-14 have been agreed as:
Tuesday 24 th
September – am
Monday 16 th
December
– pm
Wednesday 26 th
March – pm
Tuesday 17 th
June – pm