The Scottish educational crisis of 2000: an analysis of the policy process of unification.

The 'exam results debacle' of August 2000 provoked a crisis of confidence in Scottish education and appeared to reveal widespread discontent with the current Higher Still reform of post-16 education. For a time the political future of the reform seemed to hang in the balance. This is surprising because the reform incorporated the views of the consensus that emerged from the Howie debates of the early 1990s, and its development involved consultation on a wide scale. Subsequent debates blamed the leadership style of those, especially the Inspectorate, who steered the reform process; some commentators invoked Humes' (1986) analysis of the 'leadership class' of Scottish education. This paper argues that a full explanation must take account of Higher Still's character as a flexible, unified system. Compared with other types of reform, the introduction of a flexible unified system tends to involve more conflict between educational interests, and a policy process that is relatively centralized, 'top-down' and linear. An analysis of this process must take account of horizontal as well as vertical lines of conflict in education, and of the political weaknesses which prevented the leadership from articulating clear principles and priorities as a basis for conflict resolution. The paper concludes that Humes' analysis should be complemented by McPherson and Raab's (1988) account of Scottish educational policy-making as the interplay of pluralist and corporatist forces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]