CURRICULUM FOR EXCELLENCE
MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING
15 January 2014,
St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh
NOTE OF MEETING
LIST OF BOARD MEMBERS AND ATTENDEES
Board Members
Name
Kay Barnett
Janet Brown
Iain Ellis
John Edward
Grant Jarvie
Alan Johnston
Terry Lanagan
Mhairi Laughlin
Graeme Logan
Bill Maxwell
Ann MacDonald
Ann McIntosh
Ken Muir
Fiona Robertson
Andy Smith
Organisation
EIS
SQA
National Parent Forum Scotland
SCIS
Universities Scotland
Scottish Government
ADES
College Development Network Scotland
Education Scotland
Education Scotland
STEC
AHDS
GTCS
Director of Learning (Chair)
SLS
Others
Dr Alasdair Allan
David Cameron
Mike Corbett
Robert Nicol
Ashley Pringle
Michael Russell
Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s
Languages
SDS
NASUWT
COSLA
CLD Standards Council
Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong
Learning
Officials
Julie Anderson
Denise Brock
Angela Davidson
Jeane Freeman
Marie Swinney
Scottish Government (Secretariat)
Education Scotland
Scottish Government
Scottish Government
Scottish Government
Apologies
Jane Peckham
NASUWT
1. Welcome & apologies
1.1
FR welcomed Board members and Ministers and introduced new members.
She welcomed Ann McIntosh who would be replacing Irene Matier as the AHDS
representative and Ann MacDonald who would be replacing David McMurtry as the
Scottish Teacher Education Committee (STEC) representative.
1.2
FR also noted that Craig Munro had returned to Fife Council on promotion to
Director and that Graeme Logan had been appointed to take forward the role of
Strategic Director (School Years) on an acting basis with immediate effect. He
would replace Craig Munro in the interim at these meetings.
1.3
She also welcomed Ashley Pringle who would be representing the interests of
the CLD at this sector, until a replacement for Duncan Simpson had been agreed.
1.4
FR noted that the SG were still liaising with ADES about a replacement for
Christine Pollock (ADES).
2. The year ahead - discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Education &
Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Learning, Science & Scotland’s
Languages
2.1
FR introduced Dr Allan and Mr Russell. The Cabinet Secretary for Education
and Lifelong Learning, began by noting that he had not been to a Management
Board meeting in several years and there had been a few changes since then. He
commended the Board for their work over the years in moving CfE forward and
enabling change. He noted that this was an important year ahead, with the first set of
the new exams, and stressed the importance of ensuring these were delivered in the
best way. The Cabinet Secretary emphasised that CfE is the way we do Scottish
education and that it is a process not an event. He highlighted the key roles that
each of the representatives around the table were playing and how he had been
personally engaging with each of them. He reiterated the importance of the Board’s
role in advising the Scottish Government about issues and concerns. He said that if
the Scottish Government needed to do more, then the Board members must tell
Ministers and they will take action where needed.
2.2
The Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages reinforced the
Cabinet Secretary’s points, noting that a key part of his job was being a strong
advocate for CfE and this was a role that all of the Board members shared. He noted
that it was important that we heard teachers’ views nationally and asked the Board
members to raise any concerns, individually and collectively, indicating that there
were a range of channels through which they could do this. He also said that, whilst
the focus would be on qualifications over the coming months, he was very aware of
wider issues and this formed an important part of the Board’s work.
2.3
FR invited Board members to offer their thoughts on the points made by both
Ministers. The key points raised in discussion were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This was an important year for CfE and Ministers’ acknowledgement of
distance travelled was welcomed.
CfE was now at a point where we were beginning to see the benefits and it
was important to note the major achievements, including getting the last of the
Higher Education statements from the Glasgow College of Art. This had been
a significant step forward in showing how universities supported CfE.
However, there were important issues to address over the next few years
including looking at S6 and the outcomes of the Wood Commission. Also
teachers were still concerned about workload and the verification process and
that these concerns should be addressed.
It would be important to make sure any decisions not to use the new Highers
were taken for the right reasons.
Members were pleased that Ministers recognised that the role of the Board
was to speak frankly and acknowledged that this was different for teachers.
Irrespective of which organisation they belonged to, teachers wanted to get it
right and therefore the role of representatives on the Board was to speak for
them.
Immediate issues for EIS were: the need for a focus on N4 and N5; the need
for a focus on assessment strategies; and the need to ensure the decisions
around the new Higher were based on good judgement and ensuring young
people get the best experience next year. The Cabinet Secretary agreed with
these points and said that the Scottish Government’s role was to support
teachers and to enable discussions about how to resolve issues, adjudicate
and help things move forward.
Concerns were raised about national communications, the extent to which
teachers at grass roots levels were aware of the bureaucracy report and how
they were being supported to take it forward. Alan Johnston (AJ) informed the
Board that hard copies of the report were being produced and distributed. The
Cabinet Secretary noted that everyone had a role in raising awareness of this.
Also on the bureaucracy report, EIS had encouraged teachers to fully engage
with the issues covered in the document. It was also felt that local authorities
should also be communicating the messages from this report to their schools.
A big part of the problem was that individual teachers did not want to get it
wrong so were taking a belt and braces approach. As confidence grew, this
would improve.
Education Scotland was working with education authorities and EIS, amongst
others, to identify and share good practice around reducing bureaucracy.
ES and partners were organising events for every Headteacher in Scotland,
beginning in February, where examples of good practice would be shared.
It was assessment that was the main cause of stress and that bureaucracy
was linked to this as people were still over assessing.
AHDS were planning a conference and developing models that would provide
support and help people reduce the amount of unnecessary planning and
assessing they did.
Getting information directly to teachers was a key issue and SQA had been
experiencing this with the National 5 verification work. Some teachers were
•
•
•
embracing the change and understood how to assess overarching outcomes,
but some had undertaken assessment for every single outcome. To date, over
100 nominees across Scotland had been trained and SQA needed to work
with ADES to look at how they could be used in the school system.
From now until the exams the focus needed to be on young people and what
was best for them. It was important to be honest with parents about the issues
and what was being done to address them. The NPFS had planned an event
in West Dunbartonshire at the end of January for parents and also said that
the Great Learning in Scotland leaflet needed to reach all parents.
It was felt that decisions on the use of old Highers must be based on a clear
rationale and this must be communicated as early as possible to young
people and parents. The Cabinet Secretary agreed, noting that people must
be clear about what is happening and that good communication was key to
this. He referred to the EIS survey and said that care needed to be taken in
communicating the messages. He said that Board must recognise the role of
the media and be pro-active about CfE. He emphasised the need to resolve
any negative publicity quickly as this would be disadvantageous to parents
and pupils.
It was important not to lose sight of the opportunities and pathways that CfE
opens up for young people who will not be going on to Higher Education and
that there was a lot of emerging good practice from S4 and S5.
2.4
Before leaving, the Cabinet Secretary reminded the Board that Ministers were
always available to them and happy to discuss any concerns directly. He again
emphasised the important work to be done over the coming months and said that
this would be done in a mutually supportive way.
3. Note and actions from the last meeting
3.1
FR asked the Board to agree the note of the last meeting. Several members
queried the wording under item 3 of the note. It was agreed that this would be
revised and circulated again for agreement before being published online.
3.2
Alan Johnston (AJ) provided an update on the actions from the September
meeting.
4. CfE Implementation Progress
4.1
BM talked through paper 4.1, noting that this did not cover the SQA Quality
Assurance work that took place just before Christmas. He highlighted the following
key developments since the Board met in September:
•
He had written to education authorities and schools regarding the new
Highers, clarifying that there would be a presumption of progression from
National 5 to the new Higher, but that there was flexibility. This had been
followed up by the Cabinet Secretary’s speech at the SLS Conference.
•
•
•
Planning was underway for four leadership events, which would look at how
schools were refining their Senior Phase models and qualifications.
The Implementation Group was continuing to watch the development of the
SPBT with interest, and was conscious of the major cultural change that this
would require. As such, the Group would be developing a broad programme
of engagement with schools, parents and teachers about how this should be
used. It would also be looking at what was published in terms of statistics and
needed to look at new ways of surfacing performance information.
The Implementation Group had held a helpful meeting with Iain Ellis and
would be working to strengthen links in this area going forward.
4.2
BM also told the Board that he would be coming back to them with a revised
form of annual report, which would look at progress in implementing the main work
streams of CfE. He would provide further information in due course.
4.3
Denise Brock talked through paper 4.2, noting the following points:
•
•
•
•
•
There were two distinct strands to the Communications Strategy going
forward: hard facts to teachers, parents etc.; and work to develop confidence
and show that good practice was happening across schools.
Parental communications were high on the agenda and that more Nationals in
a Nutshell would be published later in January. After that the focus would be
on getting schools to use these with parents and no further materials would be
published.
ES would also be looking at proactive communications that would reach
parents through the media, focusing on key points including when young
people chose subjects and when they do exams. They would be working to
get these experiences shared as widely as possible.
Work was in hand to make sure that teachers could access user friendly
materials and, based on feedback, ES was developing a new web tool, which
would draw together a range of resources. ES would also be publishing a
timeline of support materials, indicating what was currently available and what
was coming out.
Planning was underway for a number of events to follow up on the distribution
of the bureaucracy report to all teachers and that work was being done with
national partners and teaching organisations over the next few months to
ensure this was done right.
4.4
Reflecting on the earlier discussion with Ministers and BM’s Implementation
Update, FR noted that the main issue coming through was the assessment process
for Nationals 4 and 5 and Highers. She asked the Board if they felt that the
communications around these issues were right, if there was a good understanding
of what the issues were on assessment and if the response being planned was
adequate. The key points raised in discussion were:
•
Assessment was a significant problem, with feedback from over 80% of local
EIS associations suggesting concerns around lack of clarity, workload, the
verification process and bureaucracy.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
With regard to National 4 and 5 there needed to be clarification around what
needs to be done before the exam diet began and where teachers would get
the time to do this. As such EIS would be writing to the Cabinet Secretary
regarding additional in-service days, as it was felt that twilight activities
planned by local authorities would not be enough.
The question was raised about where teachers would get the time to reflect
on issues around Highers and it was suggested that it might be an idea to
reconvene the Management Board Qualifications Governance Group, within a
different context. It was felt that this should be an assessment group rather
than qualifications, as it was about changing the culture of assessment in
schools.
CfE was about flexibility and changing learning and teaching approaches,
therefore the qualifications had been developed to reflect this, taking a
different approach and giving teachers more responsibility. Much of the
feedback received had been very valid, as practitioners wanted to do the best
for their young people and acknowledged that teachers needed assessment
support throughout school. However, providing too much prescription wouldn’t
help the system and would undo the aims of CfE. There had been the same
debate the previous year around support materials for National 4 and 5.
There was a need to build teacher confidence and to continually reinforce the
message that no one approach was better than any other and that
assessment was to improve not to prove young people’s progress.
The most difficult thing to change was culture and the Board should not
underestimate how much this had already changed. However, because
qualifications represent the end point and can almost be seen as an
assessment of the teacher’s performance, they can mitigate against any
change in the Senior Phase.
There were a range of different approaches being taken, with some schools
doing S4 to S6 as a single cohort, some schools by-passing and some
schools embracing wider achievement, with timetables being less
qualifications driven. As such there wouldn’t be a uniform picture across
Scotland, but it did feel more positive and there was a lot of good practice out
there.
It was the role of the Scottish Government and Education Scotland to share
this innovative practice.
Additional in-service days would not be helpful presentationally and there
were other ways of addressing issues.
There was a need to look long term and think about the role of the Curriculum,
Learning, Teaching & Assessment (CLTA) forums and the role that these
would have in looking at learning and teaching, ensuring that the qualifications
were not driving the system.
The importance of being aware of parental concerns and having a
communications strategy to address these was emphasised. Board members
had an individual responsibility to highlight local good practice to local media
in their areas, so that parents were able to know there was more to the story
than what appeared in the national press. The main source of information for
parents was teachers, therefore it was important to ensure they could give
accurate information. The Great Learning in Scotland leaflet was intended for
all parents in Scotland.
•
On support for assessment, SQA had offered all local authorities support for
subjects where feedback had suggested there were most concerns. They
were also providing further online support, including FAQs, examples etc. and
were working with ADES to look at other ways of supporting staff. It was noted
that teachers needed to know things like “when” as well as “how” and
information on its own is not enough.
4.5
AJ said that, if the Board felt there needed to be a focus on assessment
issues, then this would be acted upon. In terms of in-service days, he noted that
there had been a great deal of discussion about this previously and it had been felt
that in-service days were a blunt tool and needed to be targeted at people who really
needed them. He added that the issue was really about time for teachers to think
and reflect off line. FR asked for the Board’s views on how else this could be done.
Points raised in discussion here were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time issues had led to a feeling of lack of preparedness and where some
have postponed the new Highers, which had led to teachers feeling better
prepared for National 4 and National 5.
In many cases, there would be more worked needed to prepare young people
to move from National 5 to the old Higher.
There was a need for a follow up to the bureaucracy report, otherwise there
would be too long between the report being issued and work happening.
Bureaucracy would be covered in school inspections.
ES would also be working to showcase examples where there has been good
progression into the new Highers in the Senior Phase leadership events.
Education Scotland staff were currently visiting many Secondary Schools to
see what support they needed and were looking at how to maximise time for
people to work together.
GTCS were looking at how they used the Teaching in Scotland magazine and
wanted it to be a collaborative magazine. Between Easter and Summer 2014
all partners would be asked to submit articles, ensuring that teachers got the
information they need to know on key issues. KM would come back to the
Board on the detail.
It was noted that when producing materials, it was important to think carefully
about the audiences and about the use of local press.
4.6
FR noted the need to look at the best mechanisms for providing support
and AJ agreed that there was a need to look in more detail at teacher capacity
issues. FR said that the Board would return to the question of Highers in future. She
also noted that there had been some important points made about ensuring
communications reach parents and pupils through teachers and headteachers.
4.7
FR noted that it was helpful to have discussions about the big messages
and how education is changing and as we move towards the exams it would be even
more important to share these big messages. FR asked the Board if they had any
other views to add on communications. No further points were raised.
4.8
FR asked IE if he was content that the issues he raised at the last MB
meeting had been addressed. IE said yes, that he had met with the Implementation
Group and had formed a sub group with which he is going to undertake further work
going forward.
5. CfE Benefits Realisation/ Evaluation
5.1
AJ presented paper 5.1, providing an update on the development of an
Evaluation Strategy for Curriculum for Excellence. He noted that this was an
expansion of ideas discussed at the last Management Board meeting and the aim
was for this approach to be embedded and owned by the system. He noted that the
OECD input and formation of the CLTA national forums would provide independent
review and rigor.
5.2
GL noted that the CLTA national forums were a key way of reinforcing that
learning and teaching were not separate from assessment and subject specific
issues. The forums would offer the chance to look closely at each subject area and
review the content and direction, in response to the developing needs of young
people. The key points raised in discussion were:
• It was important to emphasise that this would be a formative process and
would be about self and external evaluation.
• The Professional Associations should be involved in the CLTA forums.
• There were few references to vocational learning and no reference of the
impact of CfE on Scottish society.
• People will want to be reassured that this is an independent review.
• There was a need to be clear that this was just one part of a wider external
evaluation.
• The review should look at the good work on school/ college partnerships.
5.3
In terms of next steps, AJ told the Board that the discussions with the OECD
would continue, the consultation on the CLTA national forums was largely complete
and that ES was developing a statement on how these would be taken forward. The
evaluation strategy would be a standing item on the agenda for Management Board
and, as such, they would return to it at the March meeting.
6. Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce
6.1
FR noted that due to time constraints, Board members should provide any
comments on paper 6.1 in correspondence. She told the Board that Hugh McAloon
would be attending the Board meeting in March and there would be a full discussion
on the Commission at that meeting. DC flagged concerns about the wording in
section 4 of paper 6.1 relating to the review of SDS careers services. It was agreed
that this would be amended.
7. AOB
7.1
TL circulated the note of the recent Learner Journey Sub Group meeting on
th
6 December 2013.
7.2
Dates for meetings in school session 13-14 have been agreed as:
Wednesday 26th March – pm – Lochend Community High School, Glasgow
Tuesday 17th June – pm