When the Education (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 4th June 2024, teachers and lecturers across Scotland might have been forgiven for believing that its publication signalled the first concrete step in advancing the long-awaited reform of our national qualification and inspection bodies.

The profession had, after all, been waiting for three years for the Scottish Government to realise its commitments to create a new Inspectorate and to abolish the SQA – a decision widely welcomed and eagerly anticipated given the SQA’s apparent disregard of and unresponsiveness to, the professional viewpoints of teachers.

The bill heralded the birth of Qualifications Scotland, a move designed to restore the trust and confidence of the teaching profession and of learners in the qualifications system, and it made way for the introduction of a new independent Inspectorate, as a means of distancing the inspection function from government.

However, as with all legislation, the devil is in the detail. So, has the patience of the profession been rewarded? Does the bill deliver the structural, and cultural change promised by the Scottish Government back in 2021 and so badly needed now?

In responding to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s call for views, the EIS has been clear that the bill does not currently go far enough in delivering the type or extent of reform which the EIS championed through the range of education reform consultations or, indeed, was envisaged in the OECD Review of Curriculum for Excellence in 2021 or the Muir Review in 2022.

Qualifications Scotland

The OECD and Muir reports both outlined a number of key features of reform which would be required to be implemented if the Scottish qualifications system were to be ‘trusted and respected by all’.

• Separation of Accreditation and Regulation from the Awarding Function

Accreditation and regulation undoubtedly play an important part in maintaining high standards of qualifications in Scotland. The OECD stated that it was not appropriate for these functions to be carried out alongside the awarding function by a single body.

Professor Muir went further, citing the imperative to restore the trust and confidence of the public, practitioners and learners in a revitalised single qualifications body – one which focused solely on awarding and did not ‘mark its own homework’!

Despite these recommendations initially being accepted by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government backtracked in December 2022, indicating that on further reflection, it intended to maintain the status quo, retaining accreditation, regulating and awarding functions within the remit of the new qualifications agency. It sought to provide some reassurance that separation and independence would be ‘emphasised and strengthened through specific governance measures’1.

But what has emerged in the bill provides little reassurance that there will be the necessary separation of functions to deliver the independence required to build professional and public trust in the new body.

The Accreditation Committee, which will be responsible for the accreditation and regulation functions, is to be established and maintained by Qualifications Scotland, with the Convener of the committee being a member of Qualifications Scotland and appointed by Scottish Ministers.

Furthermore, members of Qualifications Scotland, as well as staff members, can sit on this committee. With the duality of these roles and an apparent conflict of interest, the arrangements clearly lack the transparency and independence which the Reform Reports called for and may leave teachers, lecturers and learners wondering what, if anything, has changed.

This approach will certainly do little to deliver the culture change necessary to provide reassurance that the new body will be responsive to and engage meaningfully with key education stakeholders.

• The Centrality of Teacher Voice in Governance Arrangements

Professor Muir in his report made it clear that the needs of users of the new qualifications agency had to be central to its operation, to help foster the requisite change of culture and generate the confidence that it would be truly responsive to users’ needs.

The EIS wholeheartedly welcomed this recommendation to ensure greater representation from, and accountability to, the teaching profession and argued that there should be teacher trade union representation as a permanent feature throughout the governance structures of Qualifications Scotland.

Whilst the bill provides for some representation of teachers and lecturers in Qualifications Scotland, it does not go far enough in ensuring that teachers and lecturers will form the majority in terms of membership of the body, nor does it provide any clarity about the final composition of the new agency.

With no certainty that the profession’s voice will be heard and able to effect change, it is difficult to envisage teachers and lecturers playing the central role in governance as envisaged by Professor Muir and advocated by the EIS throughout the reform process.

Overall, the governance arrangements for the new qualifications body, as currently drafted, lack the robustness and representative nature of a structure which can and will deliver the cultural change so urgently required to build trust and confidence in the integrity of our qualifications system.

A New Inspectorate

So, what of the vision for a new Inspectorate?

When the Muir report was published, the EIS signalled its disappointment that the recommendations did not go further and advocate a more ambitious vision of the inspection process, one co-created with the profession and built on peer-review and self-evaluation.

That said, the rhetoric around the recommendations for reform provided some hope that the current top-down accountability driven model which is a driver of workload and stress for the profession, would be substantively reviewed.

In recommending that the independence of the Inspectorate be enshrined in law, Professor Muir referenced the ‘possibility of relevant stakeholders being involved in the governance of the new body’. He indicated that this would support the drive towards empowerment with a strong focus on self-evaluation and teacher voice.

In accepting Professor Muir’s recommendations, the Scottish Government said that the new body will operate ‘a supportive inspection system to foster improvement across education settings, facilitating a trusting environment between our national agencies and our learning institutions’.

an over-reliance on reporting requirements and accountability does little to signal the culture change needed in the inspection system which practitioners will have been hoping for.

However, with Scottish Ministers having a key role in funding arrangements, reporting functions and staffing appointments for the new Inspectorate, it might well be asked how the bill will deliver the necessary independence from government. And with only a very limited model of stakeholder engagement through the creation of an Advisory Council, there is insufficient meaningful engagement of teachers and lecturers in the governance of the new body.

Furthermore, an over-reliance on reporting requirements and accountability does little to signal the culture change needed in the inspection system which practitioners will have been hoping for. If the Scottish Government is committed to delivering meaningful change to the inspection process, more radical reform is necessary – reform which is founded on the premise that trust in teacher professional judgement extends to the improvement agenda and that teachers, as inhabitants of school communities are best placed to work with learners, parents and other stakeholders within their communities, and colleagues outwith, to determine the priorities and the best means of achieving associated objectives.

Overarching Outcome

There has been a considerable investment both of time and public resources on the range of consultations focusing on education reform over the last four years. The consensus reached on the changes required and identified in Muir, Hayward and through the National Discussion cannot be ignored.

The deep distrust that the teaching profession holds towards the SQA cannot be ignored.

As the International Council of Education Advisers have highlighted, the time for commissioning reviews is over and now is the time for action.

An overarching outcome of the bill must, therefore, be clear evidence of demonstrable change in the operation of the new national bodies, particularly Qualifications Scotland.

The deep distrust that the teaching profession holds towards the SQA cannot be ignored. The actions of the SQA have inflicted significant damage upon its relationship with the profession, which now largely views the organisation with cynicism and suspicion.

If the bill is to successfully deliver the meaningful reform outlined in the OECD and Muir Reports, then teachers, lecturers, learners and parents must be satisfied that the bill is more than an SQA rebranding exercise. Failure to address such a perception with concrete and credible action will render the reform process a futile endeavour and will be an opportunity missed.

With the bill currently in Stage 1 of the parliamentary process, there is, however, still hope that the Scottish Parliament, in listening to the voice of the profession, will take action to mould the current provisions and deliver the meaningful reform which has been so long promised and desperately needed.