Progression Scenarios for National 4 and 5 David Raffe, Cathy Howieson and John Hart

1. Progression Scenarios for National 4 and 5 David Raffe, Cathy Howieson and John Hart CES, University of Edinburgh

2. AIMS To inform development and implementation of N4 & N5 • Describe curriculum and progression ‘scenarios’ • Evaluate fit with qualification proposals • Implications for qualifications design, implementation, research NB • Trying to break into curriculum and qualifications ‘vicious circle’ • Focus on ‘advanced’ thinking • Changing context

3. DATA SOURCES Stage 1 • Interviews – schools, LAs & colleges • SC, SCIS, SLS, SSTA, HMIe, LTS, TSG • Meetings, events • Documents: schools, authorities, national Stage 2 • Visits to 4 schools • Interviews with 6 college staff NB timing – some questions not answerable

4. SCHOOLS (EARLY 2010) • Shared CFE vision – emphases/interpretations vary • Progress slow/variable • Drivers & constraints • Internal: staffing, resources, size, social mix • External: accountability, parental expectations, universities • Moral: not risking young people’s futures • Quals: want more information • Quals: implications of Lit & Num and ‘recognition’ of broad general education • Quals: Higher as reference point

5. SENIOR PHASE: ISSUES • Gradient of progression • Multilevel teaching (all levels) • By-passing and fall-backs • Number of S4 subjects • Single timetable for S4-S6 • Early leavers

6. SENIOR PHASE: EMERGING MODELS/LOGICS • Model 1: logic of incremental change (close to status quo) • 2+2+2 (or 2+1+1+2) • 8 subjects in S4 • Separate timetable for S5-6 • Model 2: logic of climbing frame • 3+3 • 5-6 subjects in S4 • One-year courses • Model 3: logic of progression line • 3+3 (or 5+1?) • Focus on flexible pacing/progression: by-passing, 2-year courses, etc • More distinct pathways

7. SENIOR PHASE: COMMENTS ON QUALS • More information wanted • Varying responses to ‘vicious circle’ and to CFE change strategy • More continuity/articulation between levels • Progression and removing bad steps • Multilevel delivery • Postpone choice of level – and provide fall-backs • Flexibility between levels – units, supplements, assessment • Guidance on levels/standards • Interest in other qualifications? • Mixed views on internal-only assessment at N4 • Appeals system (& evidence requirements) a constraint

8. SCHOOLS: REACTIONS TO N4 & N5 PROPOSALS • Views not strongly related to ‘models’ • Broad approval for proposals – but no strong dissatisfaction with previous system • Unitisation: new opportunities • Clarification: ‘skills-based’, ‘added value’, etc • Concern about time scales, N4 grading • Main interest in content not structure • Issues (below) included progression/vertical linkages, flexibility, standards and moderation • Early presentation, ‘banking’ and permeability of post-S3 ‘firewall’

9. COLLEGES AND PARTNERSHIPS (EARLY 2010) • Marginal to schools’ own thinking • Colleges’ role more polarised? • Discussions about new partnership models • Contexts and proposals very variable • Familiar issues – timetabling, travel, coordination, capacity, etc • Discussions still very general – questions about quals ‘premature’ • Colleges’ own preparedness • CFE impact more diffuse (eg not whole cohort) • Used to responding to new demands • Implications for ‘mainstream’ college provision?

10. COLLEGE STAFF: REACTIONS TO PROPOSALS • Broad approval for proposals: eg unitisation • College ethos of responsiveness • Diversity makes generalisation difficult – more research/engagement may be needed • Many issues similar to schools, eg progression and vertical links, flexibility, standards

11. CONCLUSION: GENERAL THEMES • Varying levels of awareness and engagement • Focus on progression and vertical linkages • Flexibility • Standards

12. VARYING AWARENESS & ENGAGEMENT • Even among ‘information elite’ • Less of a problem for colleges? • CFE model of change: but key determinants perceived to be top-down, unpredictable, arbitrary • Climbing the learning curve takes time (& support) Implications for SQA (and others) • Communications/engagement strategy: take account of different starting points of audience • Explain rationales for decisions • Time scales are critical

13. FOCUS ON PROGRESSION & VERTICAL LINKAGES • Tendency to review qualification design level-by-level: different designs A3, N4, N5, Higher • Contrasts with ‘S1-S5’ mindset of CFE paradigm • Improve vertical links – strongest message from research (outweighed counter-argument that content should vary between levels) Implications for SQA • Build vertical linkages into organisation of qualifications development and engagement • Design of qualifications …

14. FOCUS ON PROGRESSION & VERTICAL LINKAGES (Implications for SQA – continued) • Design of qualifications should (subject permitting) • Maximise curricular continuity between levels • Ensure more consistent steps-up between levels • Use same unit structure at different levels • Allow units at different levels to contribute to the same qual • Allow late choice of level of presentation • Provide fall-backs • Allow multi-level teaching

15. FLEXIBILITY • Support for flexibility between levels • (Latent) support for more unit-based approaches • Little support for flexibility of content – barrier to partnerships, transparency, standards, etc • Diversity of assessment valued more than flexibility • Little support for flexible number/size of units Implications for SQA • Flexibility is a means not an end, and needs to be justified; standardisation should be the default

16. STANDARDS • Anxiety – especially internally-assessed N4 and implications of more skills-based approach • Es and Os inadequate as guides to standards • Concerns about NAR and headroom • Robust internal verification not sufficient to establish national standards • Concern about moderation frequency/capacity Implications for SQA • Review capacity & procedures for moderation • Multi-pronged strategy? SQA Academy, NAR, etc