In the newly published Research Strategy for Scottish Education, the government has hinted that there might be another independent review of Curriculum for Excellence after the new qualifications are “bedded in”.

Here, we look at what else the new research strategy says and the circumstances that led to its introduction.

What is the Scottish government research strategy?

The strategy was promised in the education delivery plan published by education secretary John Swinney last June, shortly after he took over the education brief.

The plan said that the strategy would be published by December 2016 and would make clear “any gaps in our evidence base and how these gaps will be filled”.

What prompted Mr Swinney to make that particular commitment?

There has been a lot of criticism from academics of the Scottish government’s use of research in education.

In particular, the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s education committee hit out at the government in its submission to the OECD review of Curriculum for Excellence in 2015, saying the Scottish government failed to undertake pilot studies, collect baseline data or make early plans to effectively assess whether the reforms were working.

The society also accused the government of failing to maintain “the former high quality of empirical research into Scottish education” by cutting funding.

Is anyone else unhappy with the Scottish government’s use of evidence to inform education policy?

Opposition politicians took the government to task for not knowing enough about how well pupils were doing in primary. That prompted first minister Nicola Sturgeon to admit she did not know enough and commit to introducing the standardised assessments in literacy and numeracy, due to come in next year.

But because standardised testing was being introduced, the government scrapped the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy - as revealed in Tes Scotland - prompting another onslaught of criticism.

What does the research strategy reveal about the government’s plans?

There is a hint that the government might commission a review of the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence. The 2015 OECD review of CfE focused on the broad general education up to S3, and the strategy states: “The option was also left open to have a further review of the senior phase of CfE at a point in the future when the new national qualifications were bedded in.”

The government also says that it will “maintain a watching brief” over whether it should consider joining major international education surveys like those it pulled out of in 2010. Michael Russell, who was education secretary at that time, pulled out of Pirls (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and Timss (Trends in International Maths and Science Survey), saying that the move would save £800,000 and reduce the bureaucratic burden on headteachers - but the action was attacked by academics.

The research strategy also talks about exploring the possibility of introducing new ways of identifying disadvantaged pupils at the “individual-level”, as opposed to by the area in which they live. It acknowledges that the majority of disadvantaged pupils do not live in deprived areas.

How will the new standardised assessments be used?

The standardised assessments in literacy and numeracy - due to be sat in P1, P4, P7 and S3 - form one part of the national improvement framework, which has been introduced to monitor the performance of the system. It was published for the first time in December and will be published annually.

Are there any other attempts to improve the use of evidence in education?

The government has also entered into a partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) to produce a Scottish version of the charity’s teaching and learning toolkit, which attempts to sum up what the research says about the strategies that work when it comes to closing the attainment gap and how cost-effective they are.

It also talks, in the new research strategy, about further developing another online tool aimed at helping heads spend the £120 million earmarked for disadvantaged pupils.

However, academics have been largely disappointed with the quality of the projects highlighted on the Interventions for Equity site, saying that they were underpinned by too little evidence.

The strategy was late: was it worth it?

Some - namely opposition politicians - see this as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, arguing a research strategy should have been in place from the moment Curriculum for Excellence was introduced.

Academics, meanwhile, have welcomed the fact that a research strategy has been produced, but say many questions remain unanswered - not least whether or not researchers will have access to the data generated by the new standardised assessments.

@Emma_Seith