A recent tweet from Gerry Lyons, head of service for education at Glasgow City Council, made an important suggestion that spurred me to put pen to paper: “Let’s have a proper discussion about the senior phase, rather than counting the number of subjects in S4,” he wrote.

The debate about numbers of qualifications and their uneven social distribution raises issues that should be explored (see the work of professors Jim Scott and Mark Priestley). However, Lyons’ tweet prompted me to reflect on the wider context within which that discussion might helpfully take place.

Educational change in Scotland (and beyond) has a familiar pattern: we identify a problem related to the education of our young people; we propose a solution; we develop a programme to make things better; and, after much discussion (and often the creation of many documents), we begin to put a new policy into practice.

Initially, all goes well, as enthusiastic schools and teachers who are engaged in the exploration of the new approach begin to develop their practices, and they are soon ready and willing to report to other schools about how successfully things are progressing. Everything looks good. As the innovation grows and more schools become involved, challenges emerge. Too often, rather than standing back and analysing why gaps between intention and practice exist, we ignore the problem or make well-intentioned changes that risk creating new problems or even recreating the original problem that the innovation was intended to address.

In the debate about the number of qualifications being taken in Scotland’s secondary schools, before proposing action we have an opportunity to go back to first principles. Some of the questions we might ask to extend our evidence base include: what issues were identified as problematic in the system before Curriculum for Excellence? How was CfE (including the senior phase) designed to address these issues? How have these intentions played out in practice?

In Scotland, the relationship between intentions and implementation has not always been adequately evaluated: why innovation was thought necessary, the extent to which policy proposals have improved things, what further changes might be required and what we have learned from the process. Without an accurate record of why decisions were taken in relation to the perceived problems and the impact that a policy has when put into practice, there is always a danger that, like the myth of Sisyphus, educational innovation becomes a constant process of rolling boulders uphill only to have them roll back down again. So, how might we begin to address the questions posed in the previous paragraph?

In the absence of systematic research evidence, one option is to begin by asking questions of those involved in the original design of CfE. What follows is not research. It is based on discussions with three members of the original curriculum review process, each from a different community. It might, however, offer suggestions as to where a productive conversation could begin. Indeed, other members of the curriculum review group, or others directly involved in the process, may have further insights to add to this discussion.

What issues related to school qualifications were identified as problematic before CfE?

There were four perceived problems. First, the two years at the start of secondary school were problematic. Young people reported being dissatisfied with their experience after the initial excitement of moving to secondary school; too many subjects and too many teachers led to what was regarded as a fragmented experience, with many pupils perceived to be just marking time. Some pupils reported that teachers and schools acted as if the “real work” started with examination courses in S3; this devalued learning in S1 and S2.

Second, parents and teachers argued that S2 was too early for young people to make curricular choices that would impact on the rest of their school careers and beyond.

Third, the existing pattern of exams in S3-4 was seen as complex and confusing, and was associated with unhelpful and false distinctions between “academic” and “vocational” learning. The relationship between Standard Grade and Intermediate exams was poorly understood by employers and the wider community in Scotland.

Fourth, the “two-term dash” in S5 to Higher put significant pressure on young people (and their teachers) to “get through” the Higher curriculum, turning schools in S5 into little more than exam factories. In general, pupils were perceived to be taking too many exams and spending too much time on exam rehearsal, items from the National Assessment Bank (NABs), past papers and prelims (sometimes twice in one year).

Young people risked experiencing learning as little more than superficial rote-repetition designed for gathering qualifications rather than building breadth and depth of learning; for many, the stress of too many exams had an impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

Why was CfE (including the senior phase) designed in its current format?

Several aspects of the design of the curriculum were intended to address issues mentioned above. First, the development of the “broad general education” and the senior phase was meant to turn the early years of secondary school into a more coherent, meaningful experience; 50 per cent of secondary school would be devoted to a broad, general education. This was to allow more time for young people to engage with a broad curriculum consistent with the Scottish vision of what it was to be an educated citizen.

Retaining breadth for longer was also seen as a way to give young people more time to mature and make decisions about subject choice a year later at the end of the broad general education in S3. Qualifications would be the domain only of the senior phase.

Second, the final three years of school education would be planned as a unitary experience. What would matter would be the qualifications a young person had achieved by the end of their time in school following S6, or earlier if they chose to leave before then. Rather than a tightly specified system in which young people typically studied eight subjects for almost two years in S3-4, followed by usually five subjects in two terms in S5, schools would be able to organise courses so that young people had opportunities through this phase for both breadth and depth.

Whether a young person took one, two or three years to gain a particular qualification would not, in itself, matter. And if a pupil planned to take a Higher in a subject, there would be no need to take a qualification at National 4 or 5. This was intended to reduce the number of exams that any one young person would take.

Third, CfE was designed with the aim that young people would have the opportunity to benefit from all the experiences and outcomes up to and including those at third level (with a small number of specific exceptions, such as classical languages, literacy and Gàidhlig).

It was recognised that some young people would progress more rapidly in some curricular areas; making experiences and outcomes available at fourth level was designed to support further progression. While not intended to match particular Scottish Qualifications Authority courses, fourth-level expectations were aligned with the demand typical of SCQF (Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework) level four. It was expected that pupils would make use of this learning as they moved into exam courses.

There is no intrinsic reason for the reduction in the number of S4 qualifications. Qualifications were meant to grow out of, and articulate with, the level 3 and 4 outcomes; S4 would build from existing achievements and focus those towards qualifications. However, in reality, articulation was patchy and the idea that pupils would take a qualification only at the point when they had completed study in that subject never really took hold.

Will we grasp this opportunity for more informed decision-making?

As we reflect on the evidence emerging about the numbers of exams young people are, or aren’t, sitting, it will be important to consider the wider context for change.

In addition to reflecting on the original intentions behind the proposals for the senior phase, we might also seek to collect evidence from current practice to identify what has happened that was or wasn’t anticipated. Why have gaps emerged between policy intention and practice? And perhaps most importantly, if the original aspirations for CfE are still relevant, what needs to change to narrow the gaps between what we would like to happen and what is actually happening in schools and classrooms? Or, if we want things to be different, what new changes might be proposed and what advantages and disadvantages might arise from those proposals?

The most important question is “What matters?” Do we still believe that life in S4-6 is too exam-dominated, as young people reported before CfE? Is depth important or should that be sacrificed for breadth? Is the drive for eight rather than six national assessments linked to a desire not to lose the breadth of education that is traditionally a characteristic of Scottish education? Or is it linked to a belief that more qualifications offer a competitive advantage in the marketplace? And, if the latter, is that really the case?

Our collective focus is to improve the educational experiences and opportunities for all young people in Scotland. We owe it to them to ensure that any future changes we propose emerge from careful consideration of what we are trying to achieve and how what actually happens in schools and communities relates to these aspirations. The current review into subject choices by the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee will provide interesting insights. In addition, we need to get inside schools and inside classrooms to listen to teachers, learners and parents, to deepen our understanding of why we are where we are.

Understanding the situation is key to identifying and dealing with the real problem, whatever that proves to be.

Louise Hayward is professor of educational assessment and innovation at the University of Glasgow

This article originally appeared in the 14 June 2019 issue under the headline “Let’s break out of the box to fix our curriculum woes”