‘More work remains’ – why Scotland’s curriculum review is essential reading for Wales

If one was to pick a time of the school year to bury fairly alarming education news, then June and July wouldn’t be far off the cut.

Only this time, it was politicians in Scotland that benefitted most from the summer publication of an eye-watering report into its new national curriculum.

I use the term ‘new’ reluctantly, as the curriculum – somewhat dubiously named Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) – has been weaving its way through Scottish education for more than a decade.

And so doubtless the time was right for a full and frank review of its progress, its impact and its areas for development.

The net result – an eagerly anticipated (and delayed) report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – made for fascinating reading.

Don’t get me wrong, there were no great surprises – and very little that I wouldn’t have expected to see given all I’ve been told by Celtic colleagues in recent years.

But to have so many well-trodden and ongoing issues highlighted, in black and white, in the same place and for an international audience, was of major interest to a long-time education policy wonk like me.

The primary reason, of course, is that CfE is, to all intents and purposes, the precursor to our very own Curriculum for Wales (CfW).

It’s a point the OECD makes in its report, albeit there are still some who baulk at the suggestion that Scotland provided inspiration for Wales.

If the fact that former Education Minister Huw Lewis and his allies travelled to Scotland on curriculum reconnaissance and Professor Graham Donaldson, the architect of Successful Futures, was himself a founding father of CfE, is not sufficient evidence, then I’d urge comparison of the two curriculum frameworks.

Clear similarities can be drawn between their general philosophy and vision for learners, while more specific elements are nearly identical.

Take, for example, Scotland’s ‘Four Capacities’ of helping children to become: successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, and effective contributors.

Or its eight ‘Curriculum Areas’, of: Expressive Arts, Health and Wellbeing, Languages, Maths, Religious and Moral Education, Sciences, Social Studies, and Technologies.

Sound familiar?

And then there’s ‘Benchmarks’ and ‘Experiences and Outcomes’, which are not unlike our ‘Progression Steps’ and ‘Descriptions of Learning’.

Now that’s not to say basing our curriculum reform on Scotland’s is necessarily bad or to be avoided, and there is a great deal to be admired in CfE’s learner-centred and equitable approach to compulsory education.

But it does absolutely mean that we have to pay close attention to what is panning out in Scotland, if for no other reason than to inform in the best way possible what we are doing here in Wales.

And we’d be foolish not to – Scotland has far more experience of curriculum design and implementation, and we have plenty to learn from our very own ‘pioneer system’.

Review highlights

So what exactly did the OECD say of CfE, and what are the implications for us?

I offer the following hand-picked excerpts with brief analysis, for ease of reference:

‘CfE ownership was most often described as fragmented, with many lacking clarity on their responsibilities.’

With an over-crowded middle-tier and all sorts of arm’s-length support services, this could easily be a criticism of the Welsh system, as well as the Scottish. Indeed, the OECD has made the same noises about Wales, writing late last year that: ‘The next stage to realise the curriculum across all schools in Wales will require some revisions of the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders.’

‘The constant production and recycling of documentation was often described as “overwhelming”, and the terminology used too technical and open to interpretation.’

Official CfW guidance – readily available online – currently runs to 252 pages and while the ‘Four Purposes’ are generally well-understood, there is plenty more room for ambiguity in Descriptions of Learning and Progression Steps. Throw in a plethora of private sector, regional and local authority support (sometimes using their own terminology), and we have the potential for very mixed messaging.

‘There is some ambiguity about the role of knowledge and ways of knowing in a 21st century curriculum framework. Adjustments might therefore be needed in the concepts of CfE and the tools to put them in practice.’

Knowledge is explicitly referenced throughout CfW documentation, although detail is deliberately vague and at surface-level only. An honest discussion needs to be had in relation to content specificity, leading to qualifications – else how will children be assessed and progress measured? The moral imperative of learning from past historical events (that are not currently mandated) should not be ignored, either. Indeed, the OECD would also warn…

‘CfE flexibility can also be a double-edged sword: flexibility inevitably gives rise to variation, and in discussions, the degree of variation in how CfE was experienced by learners across Scotland (United Kingdom) was a concern. For system-level leaders, this concern was about a variation in quality across the school system… for others who expressed concern about variability, the issue was the degree of variability in how the curriculum was organised, and consequences for student outcomes, and, importantly, system equity.’

These are fundamental structural issues with the CfW framework and delivery model as it currently stands. Wherever on the subsidiarity scale you sit, these are conversations that can’t be waved away or ignored. The curriculum has at its core a commitment to narrowing the attainment gap – although the argument it could inadvertently widen it by giving rise to variation is persuasive.

‘Despite attempts to reform qualifications, misalignment between CfE’s aspirations and the qualification system became a barrier to CfE’s implementation in secondary education. Additionally, the data generated by current system monitoring seem limited to fully support CfE’s ambitions.’

Reform of qualifications hasn’t really got off the ground in Wales. We know GCSEs and A-levels are staying put, but far less is known about how they will align with CfW’s vision for bespoke learner pathways that respect pupils’ individual learning journeys. More of that later…

‘There is general confusion, confirmed by the stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team, as to what data counts when it comes to student learning. Given CfE’s focus on the four capacities, the absence of data on how well students are achieving in three of these – the capacities beyond “successful learner”, which are harder to assess – is also noteworthy.’

Hmm, how to evidence the Four Purposes… What does an enterprising, creative contributor look like? What does it mean to be ethically informed? How do you appraise good health and confidence? As well as working towards these very noble aims, perhaps we need to give more thought as to how we can actually demonstrate learners’ understanding of and commitment to them.

‘The centrality of education in the political debate, allied with the absence of an identified cycle of policy review, has resulted in a reactive and oftentimes political approach, which is not the most efficient way to address issues with CfE.’

Reactive and political – the OECD’s words, not mine! I’ve been blacklisted from enough conversations to know that open and honest debate is not always facilitated or welcome in Wales, when it really should be. Nevertheless, a degree of political stability and cross-party commitment to curriculum reform gives CfW a fighting chance of standing the test of time.

‘Develop a systematic approach to curriculum review: Scotland could consider establishing a systematic curriculum review cycle with a planned timeframe and specific review agenda, led by the specialist stand-alone agency.’

Ah yes, the aforementioned evidence… how will we know that CfW has delivered for the children and young people of Wales? How will we know that it achieved what it set out to do? How will we quantify success and failure? I’m reminded of the ill-fated ‘Wales education report card’, promised in 2014 as a way of evidencing progress against a ‘range of performance indicators’. The annual report made its debut in March 2016 and attracted criticism for airbrushing out some of the genuine challenges facing Welsh education at the time. It was never published again.

‘Schools and local authorities were afforded significant autonomy to shape CfE, possibly building capacity on the ground. Yet, CfE has lacked a structured approach to plan its developments with a longer-term perspective.’

An overhaul of initial teacher education (ITE) in Wales is laying the ground for newly-qualified teachers to drive forward curriculum reform in their schools. However, it is important that we also support the more experienced within our teaching profession to develop their practice. To ensure change is meaningful and lasting, teachers need time and space for reflection – and more opportunities to test their thinking individually and collectively. High-quality, structured and accessible professional learning is a missing piece of our CfW jigsaw.

‘Teachers saw themselves as active participants in the curriculum process, and they saw their work as reaching well beyond the technical delivery of the centrally prescribed curriculum. However, there is an obvious mismatch in the Scottish system between the curriculum-making role of teachers and the comparatively high class contact hours of teachers across the system.’

As per the previous point, teachers need time away from the classroom to engage in research and join in collaborative professional development with colleagues inside and outside school. A quick scan of the school census shows there are 8,535 fewer full-time equivalent pupils and 1,692 fewer full-time equivalent teachers in Wales now than there were a decade ago.

‘In discussions with school leaders and teachers about how decisions about curriculum are made at the school level, the needs of the students and the competence of teachers and school leadership were always referenced. But they also identified other factors. Finding time for teachers to plan collaboratively and to work together on moderation was mentioned as a challenge. The role of local authorities in setting priorities for schools and the potentially constraining roles of locally mandated approaches and initiatives were identified as significant factors for school-level curriculum planning and innovation.’

It would be fair to say that the regional model launched a decade or so ago in Wales has delivered mixed results. Differentiating between local authority and regional support has, at times, been challenging – for the middle-tier itself, nevermind schools. A further break-up of the regional model, with Ceredigion and Powys following Neath Port Talbot’s exit from ERW, will only serve to muddy the waters further. Ironically, the regional approach is something the Scots have adopted from us, although a ‘team Wales’ approach this is not.

So what of the Scottish model….

‘Similar contrasting views of the Regional Improvement Collaboratives (RICs) were also expressed. For some school leaders, these were seen as an additional layer of “the hierarchy”, “another initiative to deal with”, or “some other group to report to”. Others took a more positive view, seeing them as an important support for local empowerment, an “important platform to share good practice”, and potentially a “successful meso-system” to support CfE work in schools.’

There ain’t much difference between Scotland and Wales here, I would suggest.

‘It would seem the ambition for reformed national qualifications to align with CfE has not been fully delivered to date, despite the early commitment in Building the Curriculum 5 and the work of aligning National 4 with Level 4 of the curriculum. One of the clearest indicators of a misaligned assessment and evaluation system is when stakeholders say, “We don’t want to do this but the examination/test process makes us do it”. The OECD team heard this many times in the course of discussions of CfE, especially with stakeholders from the secondary system.’

A number of very prominent voices in Welsh education have been warning about the perils of delaying qualifications reform for some time. Yet here we are, just over a year from launch, and the quals landscape in Wales looks as uncertain as ever. GCSEs will remain, we are told, but change once again to better align with the wants and needs of the new curriculum. Only to do that, they won’t be GCSEs at all…

Schools cannot be blamed for holding back on curriculum reform when they are still being assessed – directly or indirectly – by their grade outcomes. A more radical overhaul of qualifications is needed if CfW is to deliver on its ambitions for Welsh learners – and Scotland is the perfect example for why…

‘There may well be historical reasons why the qualifications did not develop as originally planned as part of a unified 3 to 18 curriculum, but the current two-stage secondary phase that has evolved is now the most significant barrier to implementing CfE for learners in secondary school. Indeed, the backwash from the misalignment in the secondary stage may even be felt in primary schools, as concerns about readiness for subject choice and examination success were mentioned by primary school parents and school leaders.’

The aforementioned ‘backwash’ is as big an issue for Wales as it is for Scotland. As it stands, one can imagine the Foundation Phase and key stages 2 and 3 being far better geared to the idea of Purposes, AoLEs and Progression Steps, but by Key Stage 4, things start to get a lot more serious.

GCSEs are a big deal for learners, parents and schools, and it is inevitable that shoehorning high-stakes qualifications into the latter part of secondary will dictate what comes before. This is not rocket science.

‘Misalignment’ between GCSEs and a more legitimate CfW philosophy is what lies in wait for Wales unless we take decisive action now. Indeed, the OECD’s revelation that some learners ‘had set aside any aspirations towards the four capacities to undertake the “two-term dash” for their Higher qualification’ is a stark warning of the possible consequences if we don’t…

Running repairs

There is little doubt that CfW offers great promise, and the potential to transform education in Wales for the better.

But translating potential into reality is not guaranteed, and there are a number of modifications – some major, some slight – to be made if the curriculum is to deliver on its key aims and objectives.

Fundamentally, those responsible for driving reform must recognise that bumps in the road are inevitable and running repairs essential to avoid some of the accidental policy flaws evident in the CfE review.

For me, the realities of this reform journey are no better described than in this balanced and frank overview of the Scottish experience, in the OECD report:

‘The design of CfE as a framework for learners from the ages of 3 to 18 years was innovative for Scotland and visionary for the international community when it emerged in the early 2000s. Almost 20 years later, CfE is still remarkably relevant to Scotland’s aspirations for a high-quality, future-oriented education for all its children and young people. The implementation of CfE across schools since its launch depended not only on dedicated support from teachers, leaders and the wider education community. For CfE to be implemented effectively, other policies and structures of the school system needed to evolve alongside to ensure that CfE was not a moment-in-time initiative but a reform that would be embedded and sustained. Scotland has made significant progress towards this kind of policy coherence for CfE. But more work remains.’

Hope, caution and hard work. For CfW to succeed, stakeholders in Wales must be receptive to all three.

And that starts by first accepting and then unpacking our limitations – nobody is suggesting we have the finished article here in Wales, aside for maybe one or two of our political leaders who insist (unhelpfully, in my view) on describing Welsh reforms as ‘world-class’ and/or ‘world-leading’.

How can this possibly be true when said reforms are still in their infancy and the curriculum on which our entire reform agenda is based has not yet kicked into gear?

Equally, how on earth can these claims be justified when the OECD itself, via its influential Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study, offers such harsh critique of Wales’ schools system?

I would strongly recommend that the minister and his allies refrain from unnecessary grandstanding that serves only to heap more pressure onto those whose job it is to put policy into practice.

Judge, jury and executioner

The author of three major reviews into Wales’ education system (Improving Schools in Wales – 2014; The Welsh Education Reform Journey – 2017; and Achieving the New Curriculum for Wales – 2020), the OECD has been a constant feature of our policy reform journey for much of the last decade.

In fact, our association with the purveyors of public policy advice and guidance extends back to 2006, when Wales first joined PISA in its own right.

But the relationship between Wales and the OECD hasn’t always been that comfortable, with some pretty harsh truths laid at the door of politicians, policymakers and, more often than not, practitioners.

As judge, jury and occasional executioner, it is a major force in education globally and holds tremendous power over the political establishment, in particular.

And so one would hope that this latest report – on Scotland’s pioneering CfE – is as keenly read by ministers in Cardiff Bay as in Holyrood.

But very little public and media interest in its findings here in Wales suggests it might not, despite there being very clear messages we desperately need to heed.

The OECD’s Scottish policy probe makes for essential reading for those pulling strings in Welsh education; it is imperative that we join the dots between theirs and ours, and shine a light on aspects of our curriculum still sitting in the dark.

The red flags have been raised – and it’s our collective responsibility to navigate safe passage through them.

A blind self-confidence that what we are doing is right and Scottish lessons already learned is no justification for ignoring the biggest steer yet on what to avoid and what to correct in the context of CfW.

I suspect Jeremy Miles has a reading list as long as your arm – but there won’t be many more important documents to pore over this summer…