Raising the Standard in Teaching and Testing

 

First of all, I wish to thank Liz Smith MSP for inviting me to address this conference. As many of you will know, I have been a Parliamentary Labour candidate and I remain a member of the Labour Party. However, I accept that this is an ecumenical conference, so to speak, and that a variety of views on Scottish Education has been and will be expressed at it.

 

I have been actively in involved in Scottish education, as a teacher, lecturer, EIS official and consultant since 1962. So I am able to give you a long perspective.

 

We are at a very interesting juncture in the development of our educational system. A UK general election is on the horizon. Many of the SNP administration’s educational policies have either failed or have been kicked into the long grass. There is a serious crisis in local government funding affecting our schools on a daily basis and no solution to this is in sight. Against a sombre economic background, at both UK and Scottish levels, voices in favour of a radical overhaul of both UK and Scottish education are being increasingly heard. I would mention Toby Young’s argument for setting up “free schools” on a Swedish model as set out in “The Observer” on 23 August. Toby is the son of a Labour life peer and a founder of the Open University, which Harold Wilson regarded as one of his great achievements.

 

One lesson that I have learned during my educational career is that education differs from all other public services in one crucial respect. With other public services, the attitude of the consumer can to some extent be overcome. If you are referred to an NHS hospital, having a good attitude will be an advantage but having a bad attitude will not stop you from receiving effective treatment. However, where either a pupil or the pupil’s parents has a negative attitude to learning, it is likely that little or no learning will take place. The key to education is aspiration, a determination on the part of the pupil and parents to succeed. This is greatly assisted if there is peer pressure to succeed, that is if fellow pupils are also aspiring. If, in the course of pursuing equality of opportunity, we suppress aspiration, then we are destroying pupils’ future lives.

 

People recognise “a good school” when they see one. If, like my wife, you are a fan of the TV programme “Location, Location, Location”, you will note how often Phil and Kirsty, in persuading a couple to buy a particular house, refer to the fact that it is in the catchment area of good schools. They never say “The local school is not top grade, but the enrolment of your kids will improve it.”

 

Scottish education is a producer-dominated system. The consumers- that is pupils, their parents, prospective employers, and ultimately the tax payer who funds the system-have very little say. However, parents have one important right-the right to make placing requests. To say that this right is not popular in council education offices would be the understatement of the year. No one dares challenge the right, but there is, of course, no guarantee that a placing request will be successful. Last year 2500 Scottish parents were unsuccessful in getting their first choice of primary school for their child. So, one target we should have is to allow magnet schools to expand so that they can accommodate the demand for places in them. This cannot be achieved overnight, but it should be a policy commitment by the Holyrood administration and the 32 local councils and there should be funding incentives attached to this. Placing requests across council boundaries should continue to be encouraged.

 

This brings us to “free schools” as envisaged by Toby Young. They would be state secondary schools, funded by the taxpayer but not controlled by local councils. Governance would be by a local school board elected by the parents, but with minority representation of senior pupils, teachers and local councils. The school board would appoint the headteacher and take decisions on the curriculum and on matters including school hours and school uniform. Teachers’ national salaries and conditions would be maintained. It is one of the great ironies of the situation we are in that Scotland had a model for this in the past (Marr College, Troon) and has a model in the present (Jordanhill School in Glasgow). It should also be noted that School Leaders Scotland (formerly the Headteachers’ Association of Scotland) has a policy commitment somewhat along these lines, but does not seem to pursue this with any vigour.

 

Let me turn now, briefly, to the question of assessment and examinations.

 

Teachers’ leaders normally talk up “formative assessment”, that is informal assessment in the classroom feeding back into the teaching process. Let me make it clear that I have no problem with formative assessment. However, because teachers are the producers and not the consumers, formative assessment must be supplemented, at key stages of a pupil’s career, by criterion referenced assessment controlled by an outside agency such as the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Our system of external assessment is now seriously threatened by SNP policies tagged on to the so-called “Curriculum for Excellence”.

 

Fiona Hyslop is proposing a system of “national levels” to replace Standard Grade, Intermediate, Higher and Advanced Higher. Pupils leaving school at the minimum leaving age, usually at the end of S4, would be assessed at National Level 4, which would be internally assessed in the school. Such pupils would also be subject to a literacy and numeracy test that would also be internally assessed. It beggars belief that a 16-year old would be launched on the labour market with only an internally assessed National 4 certificate and, quite possibly, a “fail” in the literacy and numeracy test. What chance would such an individual have of getting a job or going on to further education? I would suggest that there is a human right, possibly not included in the European Declaration of Human Rights, for a pupil to be objectively assessed by the SQA at the end of 11 years of compulsory education.

 

What I would propose, briefly, is as follows. Existing 5-14 testing in the primary schools should be supplemented by a national literacy and numeracy test, conducted externally by the SQA. This would normally take place in the P7 year and the result would be available to the secondary school to which the pupil proceeds. The subject departments of secondary schools should continue, despite the apparent threat from the new curriculum, which is hung up on cross-curricular approaches to education. At the end of S4 there should continue to be examinations, conducted by the SQA, in all the main subjects studied by the pupil. After S4, pupils will follow their chosen specialisms and take externally assessed examinations in S5 and S6, as they do at present. Some pupils in some schools may wish to proceed to one of the Baccalaureates that seem likely to be on offer. The crucial point to be borne in mind is that education beyond S4 is voluntary and should follow the wishes and ambitions of the pupil, as advised by the teachers, with due attention to the expectations of employers and the entry requirement of institutions of further and higher education and professional bodies. There is a clear distinction to be made between the compulsory education years, where the expectations of society are important, and the post-compulsory years, where young adults take decisions that they will have to live with personally. If the whistle has to be blown on the extension of the new curriculum to the secondary schools, so be it! Most secondary teachers would breathe a great sigh of relief.

 

Thank you for your attention.