Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Education reform in Scotland: engagement, consultation and the politics of change.

1,902 views

Published on

Presentation at ECER 2010, Helsinki as part of a symposium on UK curriculum development across the different nations. This focuses on Scotland. By Vivienne Baumfield, Louise Hayward, Moira Hulme, Kay Livingston and Ian Menter

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Education reform in Scotland: engagement, consultation and the politics of change.

  1. 1. Education reform in Scotland: engagement, consultation and the politics of change Vivienne Baumfield, Louise Hayward, Moira Hulme, Kay Livingston and Ian Menter
  2. 2. This paper <ul><li>First part reports a study undertaken in 2008: </li></ul><ul><li>Second part reviews the processes that have occurred since that consultation/engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Third part discusses what has been learned </li></ul>
  3. 3. Part 1 Study of engagement and consultation <ul><li>Background: </li></ul><ul><li>National Debate in Education (2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum Review Group (2004): Curriculum for Excellence </li></ul><ul><li>Single coherent curriculum (3-18 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Three year development programme (2004-07) </li></ul><ul><li>[2007 Change of government] </li></ul><ul><li>Draft Experience and Outcomes released in stages (November 2007- May 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Year-long engagement strategy: teachers, parents, employers, Local Authorities, colleges and universities </li></ul><ul><li>University of Glasgow commissioned to collect, analyse and report data gathered through the engagement process </li></ul><ul><li>(January - December 2008). </li></ul>
  4. 4. Curriculum Review Group strategic priorities <ul><li>De-cluttering the curriculum to reduce overload </li></ul><ul><li>Improving transition between stages of schooling </li></ul><ul><li>Tackling disaffection and disengagement in the middle years (11-14 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Increased flexibility in age and stage progression routes (vertical and/or lateral) </li></ul><ul><li>Recognising achievement through accreditation of wider learning </li></ul><ul><li>Tackling the ‘opportunity gap’ (equity issues) and promoting inclusion </li></ul><ul><li>Improving opportunities for vocational education (14-16 age group) </li></ul>
  5. 5. The four capacities
  6. 6. Sources of data
  7. 7. Some findings <ul><li>cultural challenges at the early stages of implementation/ enactment: riskiness, ‘getting it wrong’ </li></ul><ul><li>concern over alignment with HMIE inspection regime </li></ul><ul><li>concern about the variability in interpretation between teachers, departments/faculties, schools and authorities </li></ul><ul><li>support for professional dialogue and collaboration, not ‘roll out’/cascade model </li></ul><ul><li>need for time and space to support school-level development opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>concern about continuity, progression and assessment </li></ul>
  8. 8. Enhancing professionalism? <ul><li>welcomed the emphasis on ‘methodologies’: active and cooperative learning, thinking skills, AifL </li></ul><ul><li>welcomed opportunities to exercise professional judgement but within a supportive framework of clear expectations </li></ul><ul><li>teachers in public examination years more risk averse </li></ul><ul><li>concern among some secondary teachers re. ‘dilution’ arising from inter-disciplinarity </li></ul><ul><li>cross-curricular/whole school work mediated through subject/stage identifications </li></ul><ul><li>moving from consultation to sustained engagement </li></ul>
  9. 9. Part 2 - Implementing the new curriculum <ul><li>And now what has happened? </li></ul><ul><li>The curriculum was launched on 16 August </li></ul><ul><li>Continuing tensions between local and central government </li></ul><ul><li>A major financial crisis </li></ul><ul><li>Change of Education Secretary (December 2009) </li></ul>
  10. 10. The new Curriculum <ul><li>Much more detail than originally envisaged </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Building the Curriculum’ - support and guidance, websites, podcasts, schools’ digital network – the politics of persuasion? </li></ul><ul><li>A one year delay was built in and at one time it seemed another year would be added </li></ul><ul><li>But why? </li></ul>
  11. 11. The CfE Management Board <ul><li>Scottish Government </li></ul><ul><li>Learning and Teaching Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>Scottish Qualifications Authority </li></ul><ul><li>HM Inspectorate of Education </li></ul><ul><li>Educational Institute of Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association </li></ul><ul><li>Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers </li></ul><ul><li>Association of Scotland’s Colleges </li></ul><ul><li>Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>School Leaders Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>Association of Directors of Education in Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>General Teaching Council Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>Skills Development Scotland </li></ul><ul><li>Deans of Universities’ Faculties of Education </li></ul><ul><li>Scottish Council of Independent Schools </li></ul>
  12. 12. Opposition and resistance <ul><li>EIS 58% of secondary teachers did not understand the new curriculum (May 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>SSTA 89% of respondents needed more subject resources; 84% felt training was inadequate; 70% felt consultation inadequate (April 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>CfE Management Board survey - 78% primary 37% secondary felt confident about progress (March 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>HMIE - half of 150 sec schools were at an early stage (HMIE suspended its inspection programme) </li></ul>
  13. 13. … and more <ul><li>Cabinet Secretary wrote letter to parents of all new secondary students </li></ul><ul><li>Two unions balloting on industrial action – possible work to rule (35 hour week) </li></ul><ul><li>EIS considering a one day strike next March (first ballot for strike action since 1989) </li></ul><ul><li>Call for delay in new assessment arrangements (due 2014) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Part 3 - Discussion <ul><li>Is there a fundamental shift in the nature of the policy community in Scotland? (Changing nature of the state?) </li></ul><ul><li>The central paradox – all support enhanced professionalism but there is resistance to this version of it. Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Would it have played out differently if the balance between local and national had not (been) shifted – or if it had not coincided with a financial crisis? </li></ul>
  15. 15. More questions <ul><li>Or is it ‘simply’ because the curriculum model is confused (as Priestley and Humes (2010) suggest: ‘the operational end of CfE is… arguably inimical to the underlying purposes of the curriculum as expressed in the four capacities’) </li></ul><ul><li>Or that this is not so much a curriculum reform as a pedagogical reform…. (ie confusion over ‘message systems’) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Conclusions <ul><li>From Part 1: It may be important to distinguish between ‘consultation’ and ‘engagement’ </li></ul><ul><li>From Part 2: The importance of a ‘situated (and dynamic) perspective’ on curriculum (or any education policy) reform </li></ul>
  17. 17. Further information <ul><li>Curriculum for Excellence website: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/index.asp </li></ul><ul><li>University of Glasgow Interim and Final Report: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/background/keydocuments/index.asp </li></ul><ul><li>Contact: </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×