Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment - SG response: Fairer Scotland Duty impact assessment

Section 2 – Evidence - Existing Inequalities of Outcome

2.1 Child Poverty

It is estimated that 24% of children (240,000 children each year) were living in relative povertyafter housing costs in 2020-23. Before housing costs, it is estimated that 23% of children (230,000 children each year) were in relative poverty.

After a long fall between the late nineties and 2010-13, which slowed briefly just before the 2008/09 recession, child poverty rates rose again. The after-housing-cost rise appears to have stopped rising now, whereas the before-housing costs measure continues to rise slightly. Having paid work is an effective way out of poverty, and those families where all adults are in full-time work have a low poverty risk. But having a job is not always enough, for example when it does not pay well, or when someone is unable to work enough hours. It is estimated that in 2020-23, 70% of children in relative poverty after housing costs were living in working households.

It is estimated that 10% of children were living in combined low income and material deprivation after housing costs in 2020-23. Before housing costs, this was 10% of children. Combined low income and child material deprivation is an additional way of measuring living standards. It is about households who cannot afford basic goods and activities that are seen as necessities in society.

Some types of households with children are known to be at a particularly high risk of poverty. These include households with single parents, three or more children, disabled household members, of a minority ethnic background, with a child aged under one, or a mother aged under 25. These groups do not cover everyone at higher risk of poverty, but taken together, they cover the majority of households with children that are in poverty. In terms of the longer-term inequalities of outcome, the latest Data on Wealth in Scotland 2006-2020 shows a significant disparity between the amount of wealth an individual can expect to accumulate in life depending on their qualification level.In 2018-2020, a typical adult with a degree-level or higher qualification had £207,100 in total wealth, compared to £76,900 for adults with another type of qualification, and £36,000 for adults with no formal qualification.

2.2 Attainment and Destinations

The National Improvement Framework monitors the poverty-related attainment gap based on a basket of key measures. Three of these measures are based on school leaver attainment by deprivation, namely:

• The proportion of leavers attaining one pass or more at SCQF Level 4 or better in National Qualifications, where the gap between the proportion of school leavers from the (20%) most deprived and (20%) least deprived areas, based on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was 5.9 percentage points in 2022-23. This is slightly wider than in 2021-22 (5.8 percentage points).
• At SCQF Level 5 or better, the gap was 20.2 percentage points in 2022-23. This is wider than in 2021-22 (19.1 percentage points).
• At SCQF Level 6 or better, the gap was 36.9% points in 2022-23. This is slightly narrower than in 2021-22 (37.0 percentage points).

Whilst progress has been made over time to reduce these gaps through the Scottish Attainment Challenge (SAC) the data still demonstrates that, whilst it doesn't apply to every individual in a particular geography, the relative deprivation that children experience can still impact on their level of attainment.

The percentage of school leavers in a positive initial destination (3 months after leaving school) increased in 2022-23 compared to 2021-22, for leavers from the (20%) most deprived areas as defined by the SIMD.

In the (20%) least deprived areas, the percentage of school leavers in a positive initial destination decreased slightly. Together this has led to a narrowing of the deprivation gap, from 4.4 percentage points in 2021-22 to 3.7 percentage points in 2022-23 – the smallest gap since consistent records began in 2009-10. The proportion of leavers from the most deprived areas in a positive destination increased from 93.4% in 2021-22 to 94.0% in 2022-23.

In 2022-23, the most common destination for leavers from the most deprived areas was Further Education at 36.8%. 5.6% of leavers from the most deprived areas were unemployed, compared to 2.1% of leavers from the least deprived areas. Leavers from the most deprived areas continue to be less likely to enter Higher Education than those from the least deprived areas.

A minority, 14.4%, of young people chose to leave school at the end of S4 in 2022-23. Of these, 92.7% were in a positive initial destination. S4 leavers are more likely to be from more deprived areas, and S6 leavers are more likely to be from less deprived areas. The proportion of S4 leavers in a positive initial destination has increased almost every year since 2017/18 (exception is 2019/20 due to Covid). It has increased from 87.5% in 2017/18 to 92.7% in 2022/23 (up 5.2 percentage points) and from 91.7% in 2021/22 (1 percentage point).

The European Commission state that, "Young people who leave education and training prematurely (at 16) are bound to lack skills and qualifications. They face a higher risk of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty."

2.3 Attainment linked to Socio-Economic Status and Other Characteristics

We have seen that evidence from the National Improvement Framework (NIF) shows that the relative deprivation that children experience can still impact on their level of attainment. This deprivation can also be linked to other characteristics, so it is important to consider this intersectionality whilst noting that an associated Equality Impact has been completed. Broad patterns in attainment by pupil characteristic are typically stable year on year, although small numbers in some characteristic groups mean fluctuations do occur. The Summary Statistics for Attainment and Initial Leaver Destinations, No. 6: 2024 Edition shows that, for attainment in National Qualifications:

• Where attainment is analysed by ethnicity Asian-Chinese pupils continue to have high levels of attainment compared to other groups, with 91.3% achieving one pass or more at SCQF Level 6 or better, compared to white Scottish pupils (56.4%).

Taken from: Summary Statistics for Attainment and Initial Leaver Destinations, No. 6: 2024

• Pupils with a recorded Additional Support Need (ASN) are less likely to achieve SCQF Levels 4 to 6 or better than pupils without an ASN. Similarly, pupils who are declared or assessed disabled are less likely to achieve SCQF Levels 4 to 6 or better than pupils who are not. In both cases, the gap is wider at higher SCQF Levels. An Education Scotland briefing on poverty & gender inequality states "Children and young people with ASN are disproportionately impacted by poverty. For example, 29% of those who live with a disabled household member live in poverty. They also have poorer educational and employment outcomes than those with no ASN."
• Geographically, pupils living in Accessible Rural and Remote Rural areas are the most likely to achieve at SCQF Level 4 or better. Those living in Accessible Rural and Remote Rural areas are also most likely to achieve at SCQF Level 5 or better. And at SCQF Level 6 or better pupils living in Accessible Rural and Large Urban areas are the most likely to achieve. Pupils living in Remote Small Towns are the least likely to achieve at SCQF Levels 4 to 6 or better.
• Attainment for school leavers who were looked after within their last year has risen over the last ten years, especially at SCQF Levels 4 and 5. The gap between the proportion of leavers looked after within the year and all children achieving 1 or more qualifications at SCQF Level 5 or better has fallen from 63.9 percentage points in 2009-10 to 50.4 percentage points in the year before the pandemic (2018-19), and to 40.3 percentage points in 2021-22. However, looked after children continue to have lower attainment than all children at all SCQF Levels. Children looked after within the last year are also around two and a half times more likely to leave school in S4. Those who were in foster care or with friends or relatives had higher attainment than other placement types, especially at home with parents.

2.4 Involving Communities of Interest

As part of the Review process a framing exercise was undertaken with stakeholders to inform an Equalities Impact Assessment. The task was to explore the SDA using the Equality and Fairer Scotland impact assessment criteria. Evidence was primarily drawn from Scottish Government statistics and from the Review's engagement. Links to the independent analysis of the three phases of the Review's engagement can be found on the Independent Review of Qualifications & Assessment web-page. In terms of where protected characteristics under equalities legislation intersect with socio-economic status the following issues were highlighted.

A key concern in respect of racial equality was in relation to the Personal Pathway component in the SDA:

"A range of known barriers impact Black and Minority Ethnic learners' access to opportunities to gain awards and achievements outside of school. Racism within mainstream services targeted at young people is one such barrier... Black and Minority Ethnic households are twice as likely to experience poverty... Activities with a cost, including basic costs such as travel, may beinaccessible for many. Allied to this, the parents of Black and Minority Ethnic learners are more likely to be working in occupations with long or non-standard hours, making the practicalities of getting to and from clubs and activities more difficult." - (Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER)

Since the public consultation was issued, and in response to feedback during Phase Three of the Review, the proposed Personal Pathway element of the SDA was amended. The focus of the Personal Pathway component is not on the number of experiences the learner has undertaken but on what an individual has learned through an experience i.e., the reflection. It was noted that focussing on the reflection would have a lesser impact than focussing on activities. The proposal by the IRG that support from a suitable adult for example a youth worker or teacher is provided to complete the Personal Pathway, should be framed as an entitlement and should be guaranteed for each learner, was seen as a mitigating action.

Evidence considered in respect of socio-economic aspects drew on responses received during the three phases of engagement and in particular from the Equity Community Collaborative Group led by Dr Edward Sosu of Strathclyde University. The main concern in relation to socio-economic equality was in respect of the Personal Pathway component. Many respondents in the public consultation and in the Phase Three engagement felt that for a variety of reasons it would be easier for learners from higher socio-economic backgrounds to complete this section of the SDA than learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds, thereby exacerbating existing and longstanding inequalities in educational outcomes.

As outlined above, the Framing Group reflected that since the public consultation was issued, and in response to feedback during Phase Three the Personal Pathway component in the SDA has been updated. Notwithstanding, the group felt that there may still be equalities issues in respect of the Personal Pathway component which will need to be explored further.

Other areas of concern in the SDA noted by respondents in respect of socio-economic equality, include the possibility of teacher bias against learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds. A study on the "Impact of Linear and Modular Examinations at GCSE" provides evidence from the English system to validate such concerns in that:

"…some repeated findings in the literature of systematic divergence between results from teacher and test-based assessments suggest possible biases that are worth drawing attention to.

On gender, bias in favour of girls or against boys in teacher assessment results was more commonly found than no bias or bias in favour of boys or against girls. On ethnicity, there were findings of bias against as well as in favour of each minority group (relative to the majority group) and assessments that showed no bias. On socio-economic status, bias in favour of the less disadvantaged or against the more disadvantaged was a more common finding than no bias in UK-based studies. Bias against pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) or in favour of those without was found in nearly every analysis that included the SEN status variable. Bias against English as an Additional Language (EAL) pupils or in favour of non-EAL pupils was not a common finding, except in the subject of English."

There are also concerns around a move towards more digital learning, recognising that not all learners have access to digital technology and/or broadband.

"Digital inequity remains a serious issue for many learners, who lack access to IT devices and to wireless/broadband connectivity. We would further note that digital poverty can be hidden and is easily overlooked." – (EIS)

On the other hand, the Framing Group reflected that during school visits the Review team had received positive feedback from a number of teachers and learners about aspects of the SDA which they felt had the potential to reduce the poverty related attainment gap. For example, some teachers and learners reflected that:

• the move towards more teacher assessment was felt to be fairer since teachers know their student's ability and could provide more accurate grades than terminal examinations;
• an increase in flexibility and choice evident in the Diploma would support equity and;
• the Project Learning and Personal Pathway component were viewed as opportunities to steer the focus away from success being purely about achievement in traditional academic subjects.

During the Covid-19 pandemic the SQA conducted an Equality Impact Assessment on the Alternative Certification Model (ACM) that was instituted. This included questions around equalities and the future of assessment. Young people's views were sought and feedback highlighted the lack of parity around access to digital technology and suggested a digital approach could exacerbate some inequalities.

2.5. Digital Exclusion

In terms of achieving the National Outcome of "We are well educated, skilled and able to contribute to society" it is argued that tackling digital exclusion can improve the ability to take part in online learning activities (particularly seen during local school closures from Covid-19 outbreaks) but also that digital exclusion exacerbates students existing experience of exclusion and inequality.

The Scottish Government's Connecting Scotland programme takes a targeted approach to redressing this balance, providing support and devices to those most likely to be on the wrong side of the 'digital divide'. The programme has delivered on its target of getting 60,000 digitally excluded households online in the first three phases, distributing devices, and internet access for two years, via more than 1,000 organisations. Notwithstanding this investment, there is still a disparity between the digital access between the most and least affluent households.

There is significant variability in digital access and digital approaches across the 355 secondary schools in Scotland. This brings an element of geographic inequality which intersects with other forms of digital inequality and would represent a challenge if the recommendations were implemented at pace.

2.6 Stakeholder Feedback Following Publication of the Final Report

Professor Hayward sought to address some of the concerns raised during the Review, in her final report so it is worth considering the feedback received since the final publication. Written submissions have been received and two stakeholder workshops were held in August.

Points made in regard to digital inclusion:

• A reiteration of the need for significant investment in digital to support digital approaches to learning, assessment and profiling.
• An additional concern around digital in that for digital examinations / assessment to be equitable and fair for all learners, you would need to be assured that they all have the requisite digital skills to ensure no one is disadvantaged in that regard.
• If there is to be more extensive (national) digital approaches to assessment, such as computer adaptive assessment, this will only be feasible and equitable if digital investment is made.
• A national approach to developing high-quality online pedagogy is required to ensure that such provision is as dynamic, interactive and learner focused as the most effective face-to-face provision. Without such actions, a key element of the poverty-related attainment gap – in this case relating to aspects of rural poverty – will remain a feature of our education landscape, as young people will not have access to the learning they seek as a result of their geographical location.
• A minimum entitlement to digital access would be helpful.

Comments from stakeholders on other aspects of the IRQA proposals:

• The recognition of a broader range of achievements is welcome and aligns with the mission of the Scottish Attainment Challenge. Caution must be taken that within SCQF Levels there isn't a drive for young people from affluent backgrounds to participate in "academic" courses and those from less affluent backgrounds to participate in "non-academic" courses.
• There are concerns about the Project Learning element from a widening access perspective. Students from professional backgrounds are likely to have people around them who are able to mentor them to flourish in this collaborative environment. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds however are more likely to have self-esteem issues and therefore be less likely to meet the demands of this element. There might be an impact on meeting the targets for widening access participation in higher education as laid out by the Commission for Fair Access.
• There remains a risk that young people living in more deprived and rural areas may have less opportunity to be involved in activities that would contribute to the Personal Pathways element whereas others would have more opportunity to be involved in this. Making this an entitlement would help but would require a clear definition of what this means and appropriate funding and guidance to allow it to happen.
• At face value, including the SCQF Level in the name of all qualifications would be a positive step to move away from the culture of Highers being prioritised by some schools, parents, press and indeed political leaders at the expense of equally valuable awards at the same level.
• The Personal Pathway if a right and not entitlement would allow for young people to be better supported to do things they may otherwise not do and forces the school/college to find space for this.
• Modularisation removes the pressure of everything being entirely exam based and allows better for extenuating circumstances and other support to take place throughout the year.

In regard to the risk of teacher bias:

• Important to be clear that the internal assessment is not just teacher assessment, other forms of assessment are available.
• More funding, research and professional learning is needed around teacher bias.
• Pupils should learn about teacher bias, so that they can advocate for themselves in a more powerful way. Moderation and AI marking could be useful means of addressing teacher bias.
• We know that rights in education aren't always delivered – The Morgan Review of additional support for learning implementation highlights this.

2.7. Summary

The evidence tells us that living in poverty can have a significant impact on the educational attainment and subsequent outcomes for children and young people. It also shows a link between poverty and inequality relating to the protected characteristics of equality legislation and other circumstances (for example, those looked after by the local authority). In enacting these changes to qualifications and assessment Scottish Ministers will consider if there are opportunities to reduce (or at least not exacerbate) the inequalities of outcome caused by poverty and other forms of socio-economic disadvantage, in particular with regard to children impacted by all types of poverty and the intersectional circumstances of: gender, race, additional support needs, care experience, digital exclusion and rurality.

Suitable consideration will also be given to the opportunities and risks relevant to socio-economic status:

2.7.1. Opportunities:

• Any move towards more teacher assessment could be fairer since teachers know their student's ability and could provide more accurate grades than terminal examinations.
• Any increase in flexibility and choice could support equity by better meeting pupil's individual needs and interests.
• The- consistent inclusion of the SCQF title in qualifications may help to improve parity of esteem by helping steer the focus away from success being purely about achievement in traditional academic subjects.

2.7.2 Risks to Socio-Economic Equality:

• Not involving communities of interest in the detailed design process.
• Not ensuring any changes to assessment can be delivered to all regardless of their economic status.
• Not including strategies and actions to minimise teacher bias in marking.
• Not building mechanisms to monitor socio-economic equality impacts.