Split on Higher Still

7th August 1998 at 01:00
The Higher Still programme has tried to provide flexibility and choice within a unified assessment system but problems have arisen because its principles have not been spelled out.

David Raffe and Cathy Howieson, of the Centre for Educational Sociology at Edinburgh University, reach this conclusion after 48 interviews with those involved in the programme.

They say Higher Still lacks a coherent philosophy and has been driven by "a kind of technological determinism". Its models and rationale of choice have not been well understood, let alone agreed, by those who will have to implement it.

For example, agreement about "open and broad Scottish Groups Awards has been difficult to resolve without agreed principles of flexibility and choice".

Professor Raffe and Ms Howieson state in their article in the journal Scottish Affairs that debate continues about whether the creation of a unified national system needs an explicit strategy, with clear principles and priorities in advance, or whether these should be built up gradually as the programme develops.

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today