Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) for the Independent Review of Qualifications & Assessment (IRQA) and the Scottish Government response

Introduction

1. Brief Summary

Type of proposal:

Decision of a strategic nature relating to the rights and wellbeing of children.

Proposal: Scottish Government response to the Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment (IRQA)

The IRQA was announced by the Scottish Government in October 2021. The review was initiated in response to:

• recommendations in the OECD’s Independent Review of Scotland’s school curriculum (2021).
• the COVID-19 pandemic and a renewed debate around assessment following the cancellation of National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher exams in 2020 and 2021.
• Professor Gordon Stobart’s OECD paper setting out possible options for Scotland’s future approach to assessment and qualifications (2021).
• Professor Ken Muir’s report (2022) – Putting Learners at the Centre.

Professor Louise Hayward was appointed to lead the review and began work in Spring 2022, with the It's Our Future - Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment: report published in June 2023.

The Scottish Government response to the IRQA set out the actions that were achievable, whilst taking into account the capacity of the system, at a time when our schools are facing a range of complex challenges as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, such as issues around attendance and behaviour.

The following areas from the review were identified as having an impact on children’s rights and wellbeing:

• programmes of learning/assessment
• inter-disciplinary learning (IDL)
• personal pathway and wider achievement
• leaving certificate

The proposals outlined in the Scottish Government response to the IRQA aim to ensure that all young people in Scotland experience an education system that, in the words of the final report of the National Discussion, “is ambitious, inclusive and supportive”. This CRWIA should be read alongside the Scottish Government response to the IRQA and the final report of the IRQA. A summary of the proposals in the IRQA and the Scottish Government response are provided below. The Scottish Government response to the IRQA has been shaped by earlier versions of this CRWIA and other associated impact assessments.

Start date of proposal’s development: June 2023

Start date of CRWIA process: July 2023

Scottish Government response to the IRQA

IRQA Proposal: Programmes of Learning/Assessment

Details of proposal:

• courses should be designed in modules to allow accumulation of credits over time.
• there should be a diversification of assessment methods. No external exams at National 5.
• the Senior Phase offer should be rationalised.
• digital methods of assessment should be introduced.

Scottish Government response (subject of assessment):

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) / Qualifications Scotland is to work in partnership with teachers, pupils and other key stakeholders, to:

• take steps to remove external written examinations in practical subjects where appropriate, with changes starting to be implemented from 2025/26
• work towards extending the range of approved assessment methods which could be used for national qualifications to better support changes in the balance of assessment.
• pilot digital onscreen assessment across various subjects, including Computing Science given this is a subject area ripe for consideration. This work will start in 2025.
• set out a longer-term programme of work to rebalance assessment methods across all national courses, which will align with curriculum improvement cycle activity where possible.
• rationalise the qualifications offer in the Senior Phase, starting with the Creative, Hospitality and Sport and Technology, Engineering and Construction Sectors (which represents 800 qualifications and awards), the first phase of which is due to complete in December 2024 with other sectors and national courses to follow.
• starting in 2024, explore models of how graded national courses such as National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher could be organised into ‘modules’, to allow pupils maximum flexibility to build credit as they go. Learning from the previous experience with unit assessments (which were ultimately removed) and research into different approaches to ‘modularisation’ in other jurisdictions, will be taken into consideration.
• supplement changes to assessment which are proportionate and take teacher workload into consideration. This partnership approach will be emphasised through the participative governance structures planned for Qualifications Scotland, the detail of which is set out in the recently introduced Education (Scotland) Bill.

IRQA Proposal: Inter-disciplinary Learning (IDL)

Details of proposal:

Pupils should undertake an IDL project which is Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levelled.

Scottish Government response (subject of assessment):

• further work is required if IDL is to become a mandatory part of the Senior Phase curriculum in all secondary schools. We note the recent publication by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) of the National Thematic Inspection on Curriculum Design which states that IDL remains an underutilised element of curriculum design and that staff require a better understanding of the principles and benefits of this approach to learning
• building on the existing IDL co-design group facilitated by Education Scotland, a refreshed working group, chaired by a senior secondary school teacher experienced in the delivery of IDL, will bring together relevant partners already active in this space. This group will lead a new phase of work with the objective of better determining the place of IDL in secondary schools while ensuring an equitable offer for all young people.
• there are a number of organisations and schools already working in this area including Dollar Academy and Grove Academy (Dundee City Council), SCQF, the Wood Foundation, Daydream Believers and Powering Futures and we will ensure they are all involved in shaping our collective next steps. It is imperative that any new model is tested in a range of schools before wider adoption. This exercise will also help expand our shared knowledge as to the ways IDL could be embedded into a school’s curriculum including in respect of timetabling while also considering the place of accreditation in this curricular area.

IRQA Proposal: Personal Pathway

Details of proposal:

Pupils personalise their qualification profile by selecting aspects of their experiences that reflect their interests, the contributions they make to society and their career aspirations in employment and to discuss these in a reflective way.

Scottish Government response (subject of assessment):

• education is not just about the qualifications a young person achieves. The enduring aim of Curriculum for Excellence is that all young people develop the ‘four capacities’ to become: successful learners; confident individuals; responsible citizens; and effective contributors.
• young people in Scotland have the opportunity to undertake a wealth of activity that builds their skills and confidence, and this breadth of achievement should rightly be recognised and celebrated.
• we are committed to continuing to explore how best to recognise such achievement with a range of stakeholders, including young people. In doing so, and before considering whether or not wider achievement could ultimately be included as part of any leaving certificate, we will need to work through significant concerns raised by a wide range of stakeholders – principally, that doing so risks entrenching and exacerbating social inequity.

IRQA Proposal: Scottish Diploma of Achievement (SDA)

Details of proposal:

A Senior Phase leaving certificate with three mandatory elements: Programmes of Learning, Personal Pathway and Project Learning. Pupils have an entitlement to experiences in all three elements. The SDA is awarded at point of exit from Senior Phase.

Scottish Government response (subject of assessment):

• the Scottish Government understands the potential benefits of a leaving certificate as a means of recognising a broader range of a young person’s achievements, with the award being flexible to reflect all levels of ability.
• a leaving certificate has the potential to create a more inclusive approach to qualifications and could provide particular benefits for young people with additional support needs and/or disabilities.
• the Scottish Government understands that more work needs to be done to determine the content of the leaving certificate and establish how it will operate.
• we will endeavour to undertake further testing with Scotland’s teaching profession directly – on the best and most appropriate route forward which may support a leaving certificate in the future.
• the Scottish Government believes the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework (SCQF), often cited as a highly valuable element of Scottish education, will have a key enabling role in respect of the creation of an inclusive leaving certificate that meets the needs of all pupils.

2. With reference given to the requirements of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which aspects of the proposal are relevant to/impact upon children’s rights?

Programmes of Learning/Assessment

Articles with a positive impact: 23, 28, 29

• We think that the decision to diversify assessment methods in the Senior Phase and reduce reliance on external examinations has the potential to support children’s rights and wellbeing, specifically Articles 23, 28 and 29, by enabling pupils to evidence their learning in a broader range of ways than is currently the case.

Articles with a neutral impact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. First Optional Protocol: 4, 5, 6, 7. Second optional Protocol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11

• We do not anticipate positive or negative impacts in respect to the above articles and Optional Protocols.

Articles with a possible negative impact: 2, 30

• During engagement following publication of the final report of the IRQA we received concerns from a range of stakeholders around the possibility of bias/discrimination in relation to the proposal to remove examinations (Recommendation seven of the IRQA). The Scottish Government recognises these concerns and mitigating actions are discussed on pages 10,16 and 17.

Inter-disciplinary Learning (IDL)

Articles with a positive impact: 28, 29

• We think that the proposal to introduce an IDL element into the Senior Phase has the potential to support children’s rights and wellbeing by diversifying the Senior Phase experience and providing young people with the opportunity to develop and evidence key skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and team working.

Articles with a neutral impact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. First Optional Protocol: 4, 5, 6, 7. Second optional Protocol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

• We do not anticipate positive or negative impacts in respect to the above articles and Optional Protocols.

Personal Pathway

Articles with a positive impact: 23, 28 and 29

• The Personal Pathway proposal received considerable commentary from stakeholders both during the review and post publication of the final report. Views from stakeholders were wide ranging but the point of contention centred around differing views on the issue of equity. Some stakeholders saw the Personal Pathway as being crucial to support child rights and wellbeing by enabling young people to demonstrate their skills and experiences beyond qualifications and receive recognition for this. Those in favour emphasise that the Personal Pathway proposal may shine a light on existing inequity but does not create or exacerbate it. On the other hand, other stakeholders felt strongly that although the intentions behind the Personal Pathway were laudable, they retained concerns that in practice it would lead to greater inequity because some pupils would, as a result of either their home lives or offer at school, have a greater choice of activities and experiences to reflect upon. On balance, at the current time, we conclude that the Personal Pathway could have a positive impact on articles 23, 28 and 29.

Articles with a neutral impact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. First Optional Protocol: 4, 5, 6, 7. Second optional Protocol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

• We do not anticipate positive or negative impacts in respect to the above articles and Optional Protocols.

Leaving Certificate

Articles with a positive impact: 23, 28, 29

• The Scottish Government understands the potential benefits of a leaving certificate as a means of recognising a broader range of a young person’s achievements, with the award being flexible to reflect all levels of ability. The introduction of a leaving certificate has the potential to create a more inclusive approach to qualifications and could provide particular benefits for young people with additional support needs and/or disabilities. We therefore conclude that the Leaving Certificate could have a positive impact on articles 23, 28 and 29. However, we are mindful that the potential impact will depend on decisions taken around what to include in the content of the Leaving Certificate and how to operationalise it. Any approach to the development of a leaving certificate will require to be consistent across all schools in Scotland; thereby ensuring that all young people are provided with an equal opportunity to succeed. We will endeavour to undertake further testing with Scotland’s teaching profession directly – on the best and most appropriate route forward which may support a leaving certificate in the future.

Articles with a neutral impact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. First Optional Protocol: 4, 5, 6, 7. Second optional Protocol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

• We do not anticipate positive or negative impacts in respect to the above articles and Optional Protocols.

3. Please provide a summary of the evidence gathered which will be used to inform your decision-making and the content of the proposal

A wide range of stakeholders were involved in the development of the recommendations in the final report of the IRQA. Here you can find the methodology of the IRQA. You can access a list of all stakeholders involved through meetings with Professor Hayward or via the associated Collaborative Community Groups.

This CRWIA draws upon:

• evidence gathered during the duration of the IRQA in particular reflecting on the evidence from the Learner Collaborative Community Group chaired by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Equity Collaborative Community Gorup chaired by Dr Edward Sosu as well as a series of school visits where pupils were invited to share their views in small focus groups.
• evidence gathered post-publication this includes the two stakeholder workshops held in August 2023.
• desk-based research undertaken to support the CRWIA particularly in relation to the assessment proposals and teacher bias.

Stakeholders with a particular focus on equalities and children’s rights issues and who provided vital input to this CRWIA include:

Consultation/feedback from stakeholders

• Anti Racism in Education Programme
• Bòrd na Gàidhlig
• Child Poverty Action Group
• Children in Scotland
• Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland
• Coalition for Racial Equality Scotland
• Scottish Youth Parliament
• SQA
• Education Scotland
• Who Cares? Scotland
• Zero Tolerance Scotland

Consultation/feedback directly from children and young people

• LGBT Youth Scotland
• Scottish Network for Able Pupils
• Scottish Youth Parliament

4. Further to the evidence described at ‘3’ have you identified any 'gaps' in evidence which may prevent determination of impact? If yes, please provide an explanation of how they will be addressed

We are mindful that this CRWIA has been completed at the start of what will be a long term programme of reform and indeed the CRWIA has been used to help shape the Scottish Government’s response to the IRQA. Consequently, the policies are at a very high level and our assessment of impact is based on predicted or potential impact. Following the Scottish Government response we expect individual CRWIAs will be developed for each of the proposals and that these will supersede this CRWIA. Engagement with children and young people and representative organisations will also continue throughout the policy development process to ensure that opportunities to advance children’s rights and wellbeing are capitalised and that potential issues are explored in detail and mitigating measures identified.

5. Analysis of Evidence

Programmes of Learning/Assessment:

Our engagement with stakeholders including reflecting on the views from young people gathered during the review itself, demonstrated a clear need for diversifying assessment methods. Almost all stakeholders, including young people, saw diversification of assessment methods as an opportunity to support children’s rights and wellbeing by enabling young people to demonstrate their learning in a broader range of ways. The young people involved in the IRQA spoke about the challenges of the current qualifications and assessment system and indicated a strong desire for change within the qualifications system, but particularly in respect to assessment methods.

Challenges commonly expressed by young people included:

• A perception that the Senior Phase is too focussed on ‘teaching to exams’.
• Impact of the current ‘high stakes’ system on health and wellbeing.
• A sense of being ‘over-examined’.

Illustrative quotes from the Learners Collaborative Community Group:

“We need to reframe how we look at success – it is different for every learner and should not be measured using tick-boxes and strict criteria.”

“I find exams really hard mentally so I think a good balance between coursework and exams would definitely benefit more people as I know there are people who prefer exams too!”

There were much more mixed views with respect to the proposal to remove external examinations up to National 5 entirely (Recommendation 7 of the IRQA). There were concerns about the possibility of bias which are discussed further below. We also heard mixed views from young people themselves with some commenting that they preferred external examinations and would not like to see them removed entirely. This finding is supported by research undertaken by the SQA on the Alternative Certification Model which found that whilst some pupils reflected positively on the experience of shorter more frequent assessments, during the 2021 ACM, other pupils reported feeling stressed about the volume and timing.

In relation to the concern expressed by some stakeholders that teacher based assessment is more liable to bias than other forms of assessment we found mixed evidence^[1]. In terms of the research literature there is some evidence which suggests that teacher-based assessment is more susceptible to bias than other forms of assessment, but this is not conclusive. However, some stakeholders with whom we consulted were very concerned about the possibility of teacher bias and the potential implications for children’s rights in a system that was wholly based on internal teacher-based assessment. For example, in its Phase Three response to the IRQA the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) stated: “Teacher involvement in the setting of predicted grades in Scotland during the Coronavirus pandemic provides some insight into this. Learners from every ethnic group, on average, experienced over-estimated grades compared with actual performance within their group in previous years. With the exception of African, Caribbean and Black young people, however, every BME group of learners had lower levels of over-estimation than peers from white ethnic groups.”

Ultimately, we have decided not to accept the recommendation to remove external examinations up to National 5 as a matter of course. The precise formula of assessment approaches will necessarily differ as per the requirements of individual subjects and courses. Teachers and young people will be involved in further work to determine assessment requirements on a subject-by-subject basis. This will lessen the risk of bias/discrimination which some stakeholders have indicated concern about. Other mitigating actions in relation to the possibility of bias/discrimination are outlined on page 16.

To conclude, we think that the decision to diversify assessment methods will support children’s rights and wellbeing by allowing more young people to successfully evidence their learning and achievements. It will also act to reduce the stress associated with examinations, something many young people talked about during the review. Ultimately rebalancing assessment methods, with less reliance on high stakes final examinations, will act to support learning and teaching methods which continuously monitor progress throughout the school year, thereby better supporting outcomes for our young people including those with additional support needs.

Inter-disciplinary Learning (IDL)

Evidence relating to IDL was largely drawn from engagement with stakeholders. However we also reflected on evidence from the review itself, in particular, the chapter on international comparators which discusses other high performing jurisdictions’ (e.g. Finland and Sweden) approaches to IDL and project based work.

Evidence drawn from stakeholders was largely positive in respect to the proposal to introduce an IDL element into the Senior Phase. Young people were particularly positive about this proposal and saw inclusion of IDL as an important way of diversifying the Senior Phase and also making the Senior Phase more interesting and engaging. Illustrative quotes from young people during the review include the following:

“School should be about more than just subjects; we also need life skills.”

“I think the idea to include it [IDL element] is really good especially if we are given some choice around the topic of the project.”

“I think it’s a good idea, but you would need to make sure that it was assessed fairly.”

There were some concerns from stakeholders around the practicalities of delivering IDL including questions around the fairness of different approaches to assessing e.g. individual or group work. Some young people commented that it would be unfair if IDL was assessed on a group-by-group basis. However, overall, almost all stakeholders with whom we spoke were supportive of this proposal in principle, and saw clear benefits.

In terms of literature, we also reflected upon the recent publication by HMIE of the National Thematic Inspection on Curriculum Design which stated that IDL remains an underutilised element of curriculum design and that staff require a better understanding of the principles and benefits of this approach to learning. It recommends that “Building on work already started, national bodies and local authorities should provide further support for staff to develop a greater understanding of the principles and benefits of high-quality interdisciplinary learning.” Our approach to taking forward IDL will therefore seek to build upon existing IDL work, with the objective of ensuring that there is a consistent offer that provides all young people with a high-quality experience. Ensuring that the offer is equitable will be critical to realising the positive benefits mentioned above. In summary we conclude that introducing an IDL element into the Senior Phase has the potential to support children’s rights and wellbeing but that further work is needed to ensure that all young people are able to benefit equally.

Personal Pathway

Evidence in relation to the Personal Pathway was largely drawn from engagement with stakeholders. There were divergent views from stakeholders, including from young people, about the opportunity and challenge it presents from an equity perspective. We recognise that the Personal Pathway proposal is particularly well supported by young people, many of whom would like to see greater recognition for their wider achievements. However, we know there are differing views on the Personal Pathway with some in favour of its inclusion for equity reasons whilst others are concerned for equity reasons.

Whilst we believe that young people should receive recognition for their wider educational achievements and that education is more than just about qualifications, we retain concerns that including wider experience as part of any leaving certificate could exacerbate existing social inequity. We conclude that there are both opportunities and challenges for children’s rights and wellbeing with the Personal Pathway proposal, and that further work is therefore required.

The Personal Pathway proposal has not been fully accepted. We are committed to continue to explore how best to recognise wider achievement with a range of stakeholders including young people. In doing so, and before considering whether or not wider achievement could ultimately be included as part of any leaving certificate as per the Personal Pathway proposal, we recognise the need to work through significant concerns raised by a wide range of stakeholders, principally that doing so risks entrenching and exacerbating social inequity.

Leaving Certificate

Evidence relating to the Leaving Certificate was largely drawn from engagement with stakeholders. However we also reflected on evidence from the review itself, in particular, the chapter on international comparators which discusses other jurisdictions that have a Leaving Certificate or Diploma style qualification.

Overall, most stakeholders with whom we spoke were supportive of the proposals to introduce a leaving certificate and saw benefits for all young people, but particularly young people with additional support needs and/or disabilities. Some felt that a Leaving Certificate would enable a Senior Phase much more closely aligned with the original aims of Curriculum for Excellence. Some stakeholders also noted that a Leaving Certificate as proposed by the IRQA aligns with one of the recommendations in the Morgan Review, Support for Learning: All our children and all their potential (2020) which called for, greater recognition of wider achievement beyond national qualifications. Young people engaged during the review were on the whole very positive about the leaving certificate proposed by the IRQA.

However, this support in principle to the concept of a Leaving Certificate was often qualified, as many stakeholders pointed out that the model set out in the final report of the IRQA was at a relatively high level and that further detail would be needed to be able to determine potential impact including opportunities and challenges for children’s rights and wellbeing.

With this in mind, we will undertake further work to determine the content of any leaving certificate and establish how it will operate. We will endeavour to undertake further testing with Scotland’s teaching profession directly – on the best and most appropriate route forward which may support a leaving certificate in the future.

We conclude that in principle the leaving certificate has the potential to support children’s rights and wellbeing by creating a more inclusive approach to recognising achievement. However, to maximise the opportunity to advance children’s rights and wellbeing and ensure successfully delivery, further work will be undertaken to determine the content and how to operationalise it.

6. What changes (if any) have been made to the proposal as a result of this assessment?

Programmes of Learning/Assessment methods

The IRQA recommended removal of all external examinations up to National 5. We heard mixed views from stakeholders (see question 9 for more detail) in respect to this proposal and we have decided not to accept the recommendation to remove all external examinations as a matter of course.

Personal Pathway

The IRQA recommends that the Personal Pathway proposal become a mandatory component in the Senior Phase. We have heard mixed views (see question 9 for more detail) in respect to this proposal and feel it is necessary to take time to consider these different perspectives in further detail before determining whether the Personal Pathway should become a mandatory part of the Senior Phase.