Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s inquiry.
The purpose of education is to provide young people with the skills, knowledge and experiences that will prepare them for life beyond school and enable them to fulfil their potential. We must ensure that our young people acquire from their school experiences the capacities that will enable them to flourish in our modern, complex and uncertain world.
The national debate that led to the creation of curriculum for excellence envisaged a cohesive three to 18 education that paved the way for a broad general education and a senior phase in secondary schools.
The broad general education was envisaged to extend over the period from secondary 1 to S3 and would ensure that young people acquired a breadth of experience across eight curricular areas: expressive arts; health and wellbeing; languages, including English; mathematics; religious and moral education; sciences; social studies; and technologies.
The senior phase was envisaged as a three-year experience in which young people would be encouraged to remain at school for longer and engage in deeper learning with a broader range of opportunities to develop skills that are relevant to the wider world.
I have listened with interest to the evidence that the committee has gathered. The focus has fallen heavily on the number of subjects—in particular, national qualifications—that are studied in S4. However, the topic requires broader consideration, primarily because, under curriculum for excellence, the senior phase is designed as a three-year experience with a focus on what is achieved at the end of school rather than in any given individual year.
A critical requirement of curriculum for excellence is that schools must have the flexibility to design a senior phase that meets the needs of its learners by building on the foundations of a strong broad general education, rather than following the more rigid structure of the pre-CFE era, which was increasingly unsuited to the needs of today’s learners.
It is therefore inevitable that schools will choose different approaches according to the context in which they operate. That has been made clear in guidance. In 2011, the CFE management board, which included representation from across the education system, published a statement on the senior phase that said:
“The Management Board welcomes the emerging picture of bespoke senior phase models. These show that some schools will plan for five or six subjects in S4 - viewing it as a way of facilitating deeper learning, making space for recognising wider achievements and providing scope for taking qualifications over differing timescales eg: two year Highers. Other schools may prefer to offer, for example, eight courses of study in S4 with the option of being presented for all eight in S4 or deferring several subjects in S4, knowing that further study in these subjects will continue in S5. Similarly, some pupils may defer presentation in a subject in S5 until S6.”
There is broad agreement across the education system that headteachers and schools should have the freedom to design a curriculum that meets the needs of the learners in their schools. It is inevitable that that process will lead to variety in our education system.
I appreciate that that is challenging for many—for teachers, parents and those of us around the committee table who grew up with a different model. However, if we want an education system that is designed to equip our children and young people for the 21st century, it is inevitable that it will look different from what went before.
The crux of the discussion must be the quality of the experience that children and young people receive in schools across Scotland. Therefore, it is absolutely right that we should ask ourselves hard questions about the quality of the senior phase and the broad general education. Every school should do that.
The key point is that the answers to those questions are unlikely to be based on whether a school has a six, seven or eight-column structure in S4. The answers will reside in the rationale that is behind the entire secondary school curriculum from the broad general education into the senior phase; in the quality of learning and teaching; in the pathways that are available; and in the depth and range of partnerships that provide opportunities for young people.
I do not pretend that every school has the issue cracked, but many have, which is why we have established the regional improvement collaboratives to drive through deeper collaboration. We must continue to challenge our schools to ensure that they deliver the curriculum that I described, but I am confident that the correct approach is being pursued.
That is backed by the data. Official statistics on leavers that were published earlier this year showed that attainment at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 4 or better has remained broadly stable since 2012-13, while attainment at levels 5 and 6 has increased. Last year, 62.2 per cent of school leavers left with a qualification at level 6 or better, which is up from 55.8 per cent in 2012-13. Work-based provision for young people in the senior phase is growing. The proportion of school leavers who attain vocational qualifications at SCQF level 5 and above increased from 7.3 per cent in 2013-14 to 14.8 per cent in 2017-18. Last year, a record proportion of school leavers went on to positive destinations, including work, training and further study.
I hope that that information will assist the committee with its inquiry. I look forward to addressing the points that members raise.