“The ‘single most important mistake’ in the implementation of the new curriculum in Scotland has been the introduction of the new exams and qualifications.”

This sentence is taken from a news story we carried in Tes Scotland way back in March 2018; in that same story, we reported the comments of a secondary headteacher who said that the new qualifications had “killed Curriculum for Excellence in secondary [schools]”.

Fast-forward more than three years and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report on the implementation of CfE - published on Monday - has come to pretty much the same conclusion. One key finding of the review is that, “despite attempts to reform qualifications, misalignment between CfE’s aspirations and the qualification system became a barrier to CfE’s implementation in secondary education”.

The review authors call for assessment approaches in the senior phase to be “fully aligned to match CfE ambitions” and also for “a specialist standalone agency” responsible for the curriculum to be created. They suggest that such an agency could also be responsible for assessment.

The Scottish government has said it plans to take forward the OECD recommendations in full - and that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be replaced and Education Scotland “substantially reformed”, with its inspection remit removed.

What impact with the OECD review have on exams?

But Scottish teachers and headteachers - while undoubtedly feeling that they have finally been heard - will also be feeling wary and nervous, given the qualifications that have so failed to hit the mark are actually very new, and now they are staring at yet more upheaval.

The National qualifications which replaced the Standard Grades were introduced in every school in 2013 with the National 5 exams sat en masse for the first time in 2014. Then came the new Higher exams in 2015 and the new Advanced Highers in 2016. But by 2016 it had already become apparent that the tests sat by students throughout the year as part of the new qualifications - the unit assessments - were leading to a “testing treadmill” in schools, and so more change followed when these were removed.

In 2020, of course, there were no examinations as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and this year, teachers have again been responsible for determining their students’ grades.

No surprise, then, that the OECD found this: “While, on the one hand, there is general acceptance that there is more work needed to better align qualifications in the senior phase, there was little appetite for more reform.”

The OECD report gave a hint of what that reform might look like - although it is important to note this aspect of its work will not appear in full until the autumn, and in the short term, it will be “business as usual in the senior phase”.

Nevertheless, the report envisages moving away from traditional exams and “memory-based assessment” toward making more use of technology to deliver qualifications - whether it be taking online tests or building ePortfolios. It also talks about using assessment approaches that chime better with “21st -century curricula”, including oral and practical presentations, projects and extended essays, and more continuous teacher assessment.

This was the direction that University of Stirling curriculum expert Professor Mark Priestley was already keen to get the system to move in when the exams were cancelled for a second year in a row: the author of the review of the 2020 results debacle advocated “a mixed economy of assessments and methods”. In reality, the approach to assessment often became even narrower this year, with project work and coursework frequently dropped when the SQA was looking to give teachers some time back to deliver courses.

Priestley warned that the removal of coursework would “erode” the evidence base, but his advice went unheeded - just as teachers’ warnings over the suitability of the new qualifications have long been ignored. And, as ever, it is schools which are left to pick up the pieces.

However, the system could get better at identifying and addressing issues early when the government takes forward another of the OECD’s recommendations - namely that Curriculum for Excellence should be systematically and regularly reviewed from within, rather than calling in an outside body every few years.

Who should bear the responsibility for doing this? The OECD says it should rest with the new standalone agency responsible for curriculum - which the government is already ushering into existence along with an indication that it will, indeed, also be responsible for assessment.

Much, therefore, rests on this new body’s shoulders, so it will be crucial that the people leading it have the confidence of the profession. They need to have a proven track record but not be so immersed in the previous qualifications system that they cannot see beyond it.

Crucially, the new agency also needs to be at a remove from the government if it is to have the confidence of all.

So, there is much to do and it will all take time - Scottish schools might feel like the last decade has been a grind, but the reality is we may yet be in the foothills.

The OECD report says it took Finland four decades “to build up … bottom-up curricular capacity in communities and schools, with lots of patience, stamina and ongoing support”.

But let’s not dwell on the prospect of 30 more years of reform and refinement. Instead, let’s focus on the upcoming six or seven weeks when Scottish teachers will finally be revelling in one of the most keenly anticipated summer holidays of their careers. After that, a lot of change lies ahead - and, at this early stage, there is much to make teachers hopeful.

Emma Seith is a reporter at Tes Scotland. She tweets @Emma_Seith

This article originally appeared in the 25 June 2021 issue