Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment: consultation analysis

Subject Studies

Q2: What are your views on the proposals for recognising achievements in subjects/curricular areas?

CCG discussions

In the main, CCGs agreed with the model's approach to Subject Studies – they were positive about the change this model would represent in terms of moving away from the Scottish education system's emphasis on achievement in exam-based academic subjects. Many did, however, feel this would require a significant cultural shift among key stakeholder groups (employers, universities, parents/carers, educators etc.) to appreciate the value of the new proposals (e.g., around progressive two-year courses and different modes of assessment). Despite these positive views, most CCGs felt that development work would be required to successfully implement the Subject Studies approach.

What CCGs liked about the proposals for Subject Studies

There were several positive aspects of the proposals identified by CCGs, with three key themes standing out in responses:

The move towards fewer exams: CCGs agreed with the need to move away from 'excessive grading' and the 'two-term dash' which is impressed upon school leaders/teachers in Scotland because of having external examinations in subjects every year during the Senior Phase. They often spoke of the impact annual examinations have on learners, teachers and leaders in terms of stress/mental health, and the lack of time this affords teachers in terms of giving their students a rounded, engaging and stimulating curricula.

Greater flexibility: CCGs mentioned flexibility in terms of how learners gain qualifications, including alternative non-exam-based forms of assessment and a greater mix of internal/external assessment (where teacher judgement plays a more central role). They supported the model's capacity to embrace individual learners' needs in a subject context and assessments being tailored to each subject. Many, especially learners and parents of children with additional support needs, welcomed the proposals. They felt the proposals offered learners opportunities to demonstrate a broad range of learning assessed through their coursework.

Two-year subjects/courses/programmes: CCGs supported the approach whereby courses were progressive, and learners would 'accumulate credits' to demonstrate their achievements over this period. They considered this would promote progression/broader learning in a subject area and reduce exam-related stress that is induced by the current system. They also felt the graduated approach would make some subjects more accessible to learners who would struggle in an exit exam if it was worth 100% of the qualification grade.

CCGs queries/concerns

Despite a positive response to the proposals around Subject Studies overall, many felt the model raised several questions in terms of how Subject Studies/courses might run in practice. Many of these queries/concerns were about the very aspects of the model that CCGs broadly agreed with (e.g., greater flexibility around assessment type/balance of internal/external assessment). The queries/concerns raised by CCGs are highlighted in order of prevalence below:

Assessment issues: Most commonly, CCGs felt it would be key to ensure that alternative forms of assessment (e.g., observation, project-based work, practical tasks, presentations etc.) and internal assessments are as robust as the current external examination model. They felt this was critical for the overall success, belief and confidence in the model. Issues raised included the following.

• Time that will be required for teachers to create robust internal assessments.
• The need for clarity on measurement (e.g., which elements will be measured, will changes to the assessment of subjects be required); if/how weighting should be applied across the approaches; and resolving concerns around consistency and comparability to ensure parity for learners and transparency for those using qualifications (universities/colleges/employers).
• The balance of assessment types within individual subjects (and in particular, the balance between exams and coursework), whether this would be set nationally or in agreement with individual learners.
• Those who did not welcome a broadening of assessment approaches raised concerns about comparability and consistency; fears that teachers and or learners could 'game' the system; and concerns that it will become increasingly difficult to 'police' coursework as AI technologies such as ChatGPT become more available.

Stakeholders: Many CCGs were concerned about confidence in the new approach to Subject Studies, particularly among parents and users (employers and academic institutions). CCGs felt these groups would need educating about the value of alternative forms of assessment and proof that these are as fair/trustworthy as external examinations.

Time pressures: A few CCGs – typically the research audience – were also concerned that learners' time for Subject Studies would potentially be reduced in order to complete the Personal Pathway and Learning in Context. This could lead to a narrowing of subject choice (which would have a negative impact on some learners). Support/buy-in from subject teachers and other stakeholders, and possibly some subject re-design could be required.

Exam issues: A minority raised a concern around the final exam – and what happens if a learner fails this, but they have accumulated credits earlier in the course. This group of CCGs felt there should be a clear mechanism for tracking and accrediting achievements throughout the two-year learning and development phase. A few were concerned that learners would become deskilled at sitting major external exams.

Learner choice: Others raised concerns about various practicalities of learner choice, including:

• Learners leaving before the end of the Senior Phase (S6) and whether this group would be able to complete a qualification based on what they had learned.
• Learners dropping a course partway through the Senior Phase (S4/S5) and whether they would sit an exam or whether an accumulation of credits from fourth/fifth year would suffice.
• Learners wanting to do a 'crash' Higher in S5/S6 after not choosing that particular course at S4.
• A few CCGs were concerned about how specific elements of the changes to Subject Studies will be communicated to key audiences. They were either concerned about how employers might interpret the results of Subject Studies or how learners are made aware of the different types of assessments that will be available to them (and understand which types of assessment work best for them).

Equity: Finally, a few CCGs raised concerned about inequalities that exist across schools (i.e., between the most and least advantaged schools) and wanted reassurances that the new model would not exacerbate these inequalities (either by curriculum choices on offer, or differing approaches to internal assessment).

"As long as there's an assessor and validation framework in place, to me, it doesn't matter who's actually doing that [the assessment process], as long as it is standardised and robust." – [CCG discussions: Those who design, develop and offer qualifications]

"Agree with the proposal and welcome the flexibility in how the learner gains the subject qualification. As an employer, we often need a certain qualification level for entry to our programmes …. but we are less interested in how they gained the qualification. Continual assessment or exam would have the same weighting for us." – [CCG discussions: User of qualifications]

School and College survey

There was a tangible split among respondents to the School and College survey in terms of their views on the model's approach to Subject Studies – although many were positive, a greater proportion had reservations about the proposals for Subject Studies. Overall, teachers were most negative about the proposals, whereas learners tended to be more positive.

What School and College survey respondents liked about the proposals for Subject Studies

School and College survey respondents were most positive about reducing the number of exams that learners sit during the Senior Phase. They agreed with the underlying assumption of the proposals that continual assessment is better for students/teachers in terms of stress (removing the 'two-term dash' prevalent in S4‑S6) and that it leads to a better learning environment. They also argued that exam performance is rarely representative of future progress and achievement in higher/further education or in the workplace.

Linked to this, some School and College survey respondents liked the emphasis on continual assessment in the proposals. They felt this moves towards a model that puts the learner at the centre of their education. They agreed capturing achievements and evidence throughout the school year is a more accurate reflection of a learner's capabilities. They agreed that some pupils perform better in exams whereas others might benefit from a portfolio style approach of internal assessment. They felt this was fairer – as some learners aren't suited to the traditional external examination approach – and accessibility would make continuing education appealing to more learners, and successful outcomes would be more likely.

A few School and College survey respondents welcomed the opportunity to draw on a wider range of evidence to support assessment: for example, open book exams so that learners were tested on interpretation not just memory; presentation skills, leadership, teamwork. They supported the element of learner choice and the greater flexibility/freedom this afforded learners, making education more accessible and in line with a learner's strengths.

School and College survey queries/concerns

Workload: Chief among the more critical views was the impact the proposals would have on teacher workload. They mentioned the impact continuous internal assessment would have on workloads in terms of planning/supporting/marking/ maintaining standards, as well as additional CPD/training needed to equip teachers with the skills to design, deliver and grade robust internal assessments. They were also conscious that the proposals state the balance between internal and external assessment would differ between subjects and worried about the strain this would have on teachers in different subject areas. They sought reassurances about the impact the proposals would have on teacher workload.

Assessment issues: Several School and College survey respondents favoured retention of annual examinations. It was not always clear from responses whether this group preferred only external examination assessments, but they were often critical of the internal assessment proposals and wanted more detail about what these assessments would comprise of and how they would be validated. Reasons cited include: they provide structure for learners; prepare students for work/life; are the most consistent/comparable method of assessment; and are trusted by wider stakeholders. They provide learners with exam practice and motivation. They also force learners to keep on top of their studies and not fall too far behind.

There were also many comments relating to the implementation of the Subject Studies proposals, including:

• Queries about what would happen to learners who work towards the exit exam but then do not complete: e.g., whether they would still receive a qualification, and what this qualification would look like.
• Clarification on what happens to learners who decide they have made the wrong decision in terms of their subject study choices and want to change part way through their two-year course: e.g., what would be the status of achievement/qualification in terms of accumulated credit; and would the learner be able to take a different subject in the second year of the two-year course to replace the course that had been dropped.
• Clarification on when the two-year subject study courses would begin and end (S4-S5, S5-S6) and how this would affect the composition of the classroom in terms of having pupils in the same classroom studying for one and two-year courses and/or at different stages of the qualification.
• Detail on the balance of internal and external assessments in each subject and how this would be determined.
• Further consideration of how learner choice (in terms of assessment/subject study/progression over two years) would be delivered in practice. Some School and College survey respondents raised concerns that learners may not be able to select the most appropriate subjects and assessment types for themselves. Most of these responses were from teachers.
• Clarification on how internal assessments will be monitored/reviewed to ensure robust and consistent processes are in place across Scotland.
• How the potential for learners to use AI when undertaking coursework and project work will be addressed.

"We like the idea of reduced external assessments as long as kids are not set up to fail by gambling by not getting qualifications at N5 and going onto Higher." – [School and College survey: School community]

"I think progress should be celebrated however that looks for the individual. I think it's important that children have a choice of mode in how coursework is assessed, which plays to their strengths e.g., create a video, write an essay, prepare a talk - as long as the knowledge and skills are shared with the assessor it shouldn't matter the mode." – [School and College survey: School community]

"This is unworkable. Teachers have no time to work collaboratively and even less to continually assess and moderate." – [School and College survey: School community]