Late in the evening of Wednesday, 25 June, after years of consultations, months of debate and detailed consideration of hundreds of amendments, the Education (Scotland) Bill finally passed into law…

But, with a narrow majority of only nine votes, this was not with the widespread support the Scottish Government might have anticipated. The Bill limped over the finish line, leaving many to question whether it was the ‘significant milestone’ in education reform which the government asserted or merely an exercise in window dressing.

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 what was described as a new independent Inspectorate, as a means of distancing the inspection function from government.

However, the question on the lips of teachers and lecturers across Scotland is, will the Bill deliver the structural, and cultural change promised by the Scottish Government back in 2021 or will it prove to be little more than an exercise in re-branding?

Falling short of promise

Throughout the parliamentary process, the EIS was clear that the Bill did not go far enough in delivering the type or extent of reform which the EIS had championed through the range of Education Reform consultations or, indeed, as envisaged in the OECD Review of Curriculum for Excellence in 2021 or the Muir Review in 2022.

In advance of Stages 2 and 3 of the Bill, the EIS tabled swathes of amendments and wrote to MSPs, highlighting significant concerns about the drafting of the Bill and encouraging support for EIS amendments which sought to transform our aspirations of reform proposals into the reality of statutory provision.

Qualifications Scotland

The OECD and Muir reports had both outlined a number of key features of reform which would require to be implemented if clear evidence of demonstrable change were to be achieved and the Scottish qualifications system ‘trusted and respected by all’.

Separation of Accreditation and Regulation from the Awarding Function

Central to those proposals was the separation of the awarding powers of the new qualifications agency from the accreditation function – to deliver transparency, integrity and fairness, building trust and confidence in the new system and ensuring that Qualifications Scotland would not be ‘marking its own homework’.

The importance of this separation was clear from the evidence given and the tenor of amendments brought forward at Stage 2, resulting in the Cabinet Secretary undertaking to review this aspect of the Bill and bring forward proposals in advance of Stage 3 which could secure cross-party support.

Far from achieving consensus or the radical change needed, however, the outcome was a patchwork flannel of amendments from the Scottish Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Government, resulting in the retention of the accreditation function within the remit of Qualifications Scotland and postponing consideration of this fundamental aspect of reform for a further two years.

It’s difficult to envisage what more a review in two years will tell us that we don’t already know. The recommendations of the OECD and the Muir Report in relation to the separation of functions could not have been clearer.

The International Council of Education Advisers (ICEA), in their Third Formal Report (2021 – 2023), referenced the need for significant and immediate changes to the SQA, and concluded that ‘the time for commissioning reviews is now over. There is a strong consensus about the need for action…’

There has already been significant investment both of public funds and of stakeholders’ time in reaching consensus that action is required to separate the accreditation and awarding functions. This delay of two years will simply prolong the process, postponing implementation of essential reforms, requiring additional investment of resources and time, in commissioning another review; and undoubtedly adding to the considerable frustrations of teachers, lecturers and other stakeholders who have already made their views known.

The Centrality of Teacher Voice in Governance Arrangements

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the EIS was clear that teachers’ professional voice must be central to decision making in Qualifications Scotland, if the culture change envisaged in the Muir Review was to be implemented. A year down the line, we are less than persuaded that the Act will deliver this.

Whilst amendments to the Bill will result in greater representation of teachers and lecturers on the Board – which is welcome – there is no majority of teacher representation, and no clarity about the final composition of the Board.

It is also disappointing that specific reference is not made to the inclusion of teacher trade union representatives as a permanent feature in the governance structures to ensure representation of the informed, collective voice of the profession, based on democratically agreed policy, proper research and structured member consultation.

It remains to be seen whether the governance arrangements for the new qualifications body will deliver the cultural change so urgently required to build trust and confidence in the integrity of our qualifications system. Teachers, lecturers, learners and their families will need to be convinced through the actions of the new agency that the Bill amounts to more than a rebranding exercise.

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.

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 Prof 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’.

In reality, however, the provisions of the Bill do not provide this assurance or indeed, any real clarity about governance and the role of teachers in this new national body. With Scottish Ministers having power over key reporting functions, staffing and funding arrangements, the EIS is not confident that the legislative changes will enable the requisite meaningful change for inspection outlined in the Muir Review.

And as we continue to await the appointment of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and respond to yet another consultation on the future of inspections, teachers might be forgiven for wondering whether we are stuck in a consultation loop, with little changing on the ground.

Teachers are understandably anxious to see the promised meaningful change in the practice and culture of inspections – a departure from top-down accountability approaches, that stifle collaborative practice and drive unnecessary workload and stress. And whilst we wait, a practical interim first step and measure of goodwill would be to put an end to the insidious practice of labelling schools through blunt inspection grading processes.

So, was it worth the wait?

Only time will tell…

However, what is clear is the fundamental principle that the structural changes introduced by the Act, limited though they may be, must be matched by cultural reform.

This reform must include recognition of teacher professionalism, the imperative of a human-centred approach to educational improvement, and the need for greater investment in education to support the continued delivery of high-quality teaching and learning for the children and young people of Scotland.

Without this, teachers, lecturers, learners and parents may be forgiven for wondering what, if anything, has changed, rendering the reform process a futile endeavour, and a costly opportunity missed.