Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/33188
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPriestley, Marken_UK
dc.contributor.authorShapira, Marinaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPriestley, Andreaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRitchie, Michelleen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBarnett, Camillaen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-28T00:18:45Z-
dc.date.available2021-08-28T00:18:45Z-
dc.date.issued2020-09en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/33188-
dc.description.abstractSummary of findings - This report draws upon a range of evidence, including stakeholder testimony (generated in panel and individual interviews) and analysis of relevant documentation (including government and SQA emails). - SQA, the government, local authorities and schools faced an extremely difficult set of circumstances, within which there were no easy solutions. In this context, a workable system for qualifications, the Alternative Certification Model (ACM), was developed. This was based on three core principles and four stages. - All parties involved in the process were found to have acted with integrity, with the best interests of students in mind. - Respondents (teachers, lecturers, head teachers and local authority officials) generally found that SQA guidance was clear and useful. - The generation of estimated grades, while clearly undertaken with integrity in the majority of centres, has been subject to variation (in the types of evidence available, the processes followed for internal moderation and the support given by local authorities), which has impacted on reliability and consistency of assessment at this stage. - The statistical approach to moderation could have been more transparent earlier in the process, and moreover it has led to anomalies in grade adjustment, especially at the level of subject cohorts within centres and individuals. - There is widespread criticism by respondents of SQA for a perceived lack of transparency and a failure to engage in participative development of solutions with stakeholders. - While the application of the appeals process offered an in-principle technical solution to address these anomalies, it paid insufficient attention to the severe impact on those students obliged to undergo it (in terms of mental health and wellbeing, missed opportunities to transition into Higher Education, etc.). - Principles relating to what data is appropriate to be held by certain organisations at certain points in time.(i.e. SQA, the Scottish Government), which make perfect sense in normal times (e.g. arrangements around data sharing), appear to have impeded the development of actions that might have led to an earlier anticipation and mitigation of subsequent problems. - The equalities implications of an over-reliance on a statistical approach, premised on comparison with historical cohort data, had been raised repeatedly from April onwards, but seem to have been under-emphasised by both the government and SQA until late in the process. - Many stakeholders believe that, subsequently, opportunities were missed (or dismissed) to engage in qualitative moderation of the statistical process (e.g. sense-checking of anomalous cohort patterns by local authorities). - There has been an erosion of trust/confidence in SQA amongst teachers and young people, and damaged relations in some cases between young people and their teachers. - Communications (with professionals and with young people and their families) has been a constant source of criticism. - Our overall assessment is that, despite the extremely difficult environment for decision making, there are points in the process where different decisions may have led to better outcomes and at least partially avoided the controversy that ensued in August 2020. Of course, we are making this observation with the benefit of hindsight, thus our primary intention is to illustrate how the system can benefit from lessons learned in 2020 to avoid a similar predicament in 2021.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.relationPriestley M, Shapira M, Priestley A, Ritchie M & Barnett C (2020) Rapid Review of National Qualifications Experience 2020. Scottish Government. Edinburgh. https://www.gov.scot/publications/rapid-review-national-qualifications-experience-2020/en_UK
dc.rightsUse in this Repository permitted under the Open Government Licence: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/en_UK
dc.titleRapid Review of National Qualifications Experience 2020en_UK
dc.typeConsultancy Reporten_UK
dc.contributor.sponsorScottish Governmenten_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderScottish Governmenten_UK
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.gov.scot/publications/rapid-review-national-qualifications-experience-2020/en_UK
dc.citation.date07/10/2020en_UK
dc.publisher.addressEdinburghen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationEducationen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSociology, Social Policy & Criminologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationEducationen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSociology, Social Policy & Criminologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSociology, Social Policy & Criminologyen_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1669556en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-8276-7771en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-8860-1841en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-9920-2347en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-10-07en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2021-08-27en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeConsultancy Reporten_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorPriestley, Mark|0000-0001-8276-7771en_UK
local.rioxx.authorShapira, Marina|0000-0002-8860-1841en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPriestley, Andrea|0000-0001-9920-2347en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRitchie, Michelle|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBarnett, Camilla|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|Scottish Government|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012095en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2021-08-27en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/|2021-08-27|en_UK
local.rioxx.filename2020NQ_Final report.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Social Sciences Reports and Discussion Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2020NQ_Final report.pdfFulltext - Published Version1.23 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.