The US has a lot to say
about human rights – except
when it comes to itself
The lady laird who
would have sparred
with Eck over the teacups
Scotland and Catalonia
The differences are increasingly apparent, argues Jim Scott
Get SR free in
your inbox three
times a week
Click here
Today’s banner
Stones on Iona
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
The Cafe
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
The Curriculum for
Excellence that just
has to pass
Walter Humes
The latest exchanges between policy-makers and teachers on the state of readiness of schools for the full implementation of Curriculum for Excellence suggests that the attempt to manage the reform in an inclusive and participatory way has had limited success.
An audit of schools carried out by Education Scotland, the national body which, in partnership with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Qualifications Authority, is responsible for ensuring the success of the programme, concluded that only 30 subject departments (out of 367 secondary schools) had expressed concerns about their ability to proceed on schedule. Teachers’ unions have questioned the validity of the audit on the grounds that, in a number of local authorities, responses were sought not from classroom teachers but from head teachers and council officials, who were, it was alleged, disposed to take a favourable view.
Larry Flanagan, general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, the largest teachers’ organisation, said: ‘The audit has been a shallow exercise which barely skimmed the surface of the discontent felt in many schools’. It has even been suggested that teachers have been under pressure to state that everything is moving ahead smoothly. Ann Ballinger, general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association, has claimed that ‘any individual brave enough to stick his or her head above the parapet and admit to not being ready to implement these courses is subjected to an interrogation worthy of a police state’.
Both Michael Russell, cabinet secretary for education and lifelong learning, and Bill Maxwell, chief executive of Education Scotland, were quick to counter these allegations, asserting that the audit was just one part of a wider monitoring process and that good progress towards implementation was being made.
Curriculum for Excellence has been on the agenda since 2004 when the original policy document was produced by a review group set up by the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. The broad principles set out in the 2004 report – encapsulated in four ‘capacities’ which all youngsters are expected to acquire (becoming successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens) – received widespread endorsement. Subsequent development of the programme was, however, beset with difficulties. There was a lack of clarity about whether the reform aimed for ‘transformational change’ or simply an extension of existing ‘best practice’. When the key document setting out the ‘experiences and outcomes’ which defined the new curriculum was produced in 2009, it was criticised as being too vague. The expectation that teachers would become curriculum developers, taking more responsibility for the form and content of learning in their own classrooms, required a major change of mindset from the previous ‘top down’ regime, which had preferred compliance to independent thinking.
The decision to use the word ‘excellence’ in the title can be seen either as a worthy aspiration or as an example of ill-judged boastfulness, a form of pride which may precede a fall.
Walter Humes held professorships at the universities of Aberdeen, Strathclyde and West of Scotland and is now a visiting professor of education at the University of Stirling
