CommonSpace columnist James McEnaney says the Scottish Government’s policy process must come under scrutiny after CommonSpace revealed that just four written contributions from two education advisors helped shape controversial new standardised testing plans
ON 1 September the Scottish Government launched its National Improvement Framework which, it claims, will allow us to finally address Scotland’s appalling levels of educational inequality.
Since then, barely a week has passed without another organisation adding their voice to the chorus opposing the most contentious aspect of the government’s plan: the reintroduction of National Standardised Testing.
So far, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Rise, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and a wide range of academics and educators have criticised a policy described as “regressive” and “retrograde”.
Although the vast majority of the content of these emails is being kept secret by the government it is now abundantly clear that the official, written advice underpinning this enormous shift in policy is almost unbelievably limited.
The most common criticism centres around the school league tables which Nicola Sturgeon has already – correctly – conceded are inevitable, but there are also serious concerns about the imposition of an assessment system which is utterly incompatible with the core principles of the Curriculum for Excellence and that flies in the face of a range of international evidence, most notably from Australia.
In an educational sense the government’s plans for National Standardised Testing are not just misguided, they risk doing serious and lasting damage.
Now – thanks to the exclusive revelations detailed on CommonSpace – we know that it isn’t just the policy that’s flawed: the process which led to it also falls well short of the standards that the people of Scotland should expect from their government.
The government has been utterly adamant that the plans were driven by input from academics and educational experts but we now know that in “the three months prior to the policy launch only four pieces of written evidence were received – all emails – from only two education advisors”.
Although the vast majority of the content of these emails is being kept secret by the government it is now abundantly clear that the official, written advice underpinning this enormous shift in Scottish educational policy is almost unbelievably limited. The situation would be comic if it weren’t so serious.
One meeting, which education secretary Angela Constance described as “extremely helpful and informative”, took place in June but, because it was designated an ‘informal’ discussion, “no minutes of the meeting were taken”.
But the shocking paucity of formal advice on this issue isn’t the only problem – we should also be deeply concerned about the secrecy surrounding the discussions between the government and “various stakeholders, including academics, teachers, parents, local authority representatives, directors of education, and international experts”.
One such meeting, which education secretary Angela Constance described as “extremely helpful and informative”, took place in June but, because it was designated an ‘informal’ discussion, “no minutes of the meeting were taken”.
To date, the government has refused to provide details of the participants in any such discussions despite conceding – in response to a Freedom of Information request appeal – that there is a public interest case for revealing the groups and individuals who offered advice to the government on the matter of standardised testing.
With education ‘stakeholders’ – such as teaching unions, parents groups and professional bodies – seemingly lining up to attack the government’s plans it is vital that we know who attended these meetings and what position they took in relation to national standardised testing.
This is especially important when you factor in another revelation: that aspects of the proposed testing system could be opened up to private companies. This information has come to light in response to another FOI request, with the government refusing (thus far) to provide even an estimated figure for the cost of developing and administering Scotland’s system of standardised testing because this would risk undermining the tendering process which will apparently take place.
So the next big question is this: what if these ‘informal’ stakeholder meetings included representatives from organisations – such as Durham University’s Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM) or private education giant Pearson – with a clear interest in the development of a standardised testing system for Scotland?
With education ‘stakeholders’ – such as teaching unions, parents groups and professional bodies – seemingly lining up to attack the government’s plans it is vital that we know who attended these meetings.
Such meetings could perhaps be justified – CEM currently provides the bulk of standardised testing carried out in Scottish primary schools and their insights into the actual development of a nationwide system could prove valuable – but there can be no question that they must also be transparent.
Serious questions must now be asked about whether the government’s conduct is appropriate or acceptable. Should cabinet secretaries really be able to deem meetings of direct relevance to the development of government policy as ‘informal’?
Are we really willing to accept that such ‘discussions’ will not be minuted and that no record of attendance will be published? Is ‘trust us’ really good enough?
In the interests of transparency, democracy and – in this instance – our nation’s children, I would argue not.
The government has developed a hugely contentious policy based on no clear supporting evidence, a tiny amount of formal advice, a series of effectively secret meetings and no proper consultation with the teaching profession.
Unfortunately, it has become near impossible to avoid the conclusion that the reintroduction of standardised testing is a political decision designed primarily to benefit the SNP. So much for a new kind of politics.
Unfortunately, it has become near impossible to avoid the conclusion that the reintroduction of standardised testing is a political decision designed primarily to benefit the SNP. So much for a new kind of politics.
If the SNP is to have any credibility it must now take this opportunity to abandon plans to impose standardised testing on Scotland’s schools. Every one of us wishes to see educational inequality in Scotland reduced but a return to the failed, Thatcherite policies of the past will do nothing but push us further away from real, radical solutions to this problem.
The precedent for such a move was set back in January when Michael Matheson reversed plans for a new women’s ‘super-prison’ in Inverclyde; we now wait with baited breath to see if Angela Constance has the courage to make a similar choice.
Picture courtesy of Chris