Aibu to think that the Scottish education system is far superior to the English one?

[Margerykemp]

What I see on the news and here about GCSEs and it sounds crazy!
-different exam boards
-modular exams
-sitting exams in different years
-inflexible attitude to deferring entry
-no automatic entry to local school
-league tables
-some courses being 'worth' numerous GCSEs
-going to secondary at 10/11 rather than 11/12
-church schools
-academies
-different systems in different regions
-local authorities not having enough places for all their residents
-a high proportion of private schools, with eye watering fees
-schools making kids do 'Micky mouse subjects' to get them up the league tables
-a ' choice' system which favours pushy middle class parents

• lottery placements

-too big a jump from GCSEs to a level -too few a levels taken -not knowing a level results before applying to uni -Michael Gove being in charge!

I don't know how you all put up with it!

wigglybeezer - to be fair that's the same issue that standard grade classes have with being put forward for foundation and not credit, doing int 2 in S5 and then highers in S6.

CfE has many many issues - but that's not a new one.

My daughter will probably do a mix of highers an ints in 5th year, some of her classes arn't standard grade anyway like art and Home economics computing isnt standard grade either,

To clarify: Scottish AHs, A levels and 1st year of Scottish degree courses are all the same SQA level.

The final year of a Scottish undergraduate MA (at the ancient unis) is the equivalent of the English BA (hons).

My eldest did an HND which lets her go straight into her 2nd yr of a BA which confuses me , she seems to know what she is doing though i was a bit about it,

Novack, you CAN go stright into 2nd year of uni with some A levels (or CSYS) - or used to be able to when I went. Most people didn't becuase socially it doesn't work out so well - this may've changed since I went due to increased cost though. I went to St Andrews with Highers and didn't find I had to work harder or struggled at all (got exemption s from exams etc) even though most people who went had A levels (it was/is a very "English" uni despite the location!). I really didn't see any difference between students who "only" had Highers and those who had A levels, though I agree there absolutely should have been! Maybe is just becuase uni is so different from school the difference gets lost in amongst other factors?

The advantage of Highers is that you study more subjects beyond GCSE level -so even if you're a sceince/medic you'll have studied English beyond GCSE, or arty/law will have studied maths to a more advanced level. But then the downside is that no-one outside Scotland has a clue what they are :-).

Different exam boards for the same qualification seem like the daftest idea ever to me. How is an employer supposed to know that Board A was "more difficult" than Board B in one particular year???!

Ooh, cross posts!
Wiggly, I was 17 when i went to uni even though I stayed on and did 6 year. I wanted to go after 5th year but loads of courses wouldn't take me as I would've been so young (16).

It's never good to be a guinea pig year anywhere, the teachers are distracted. I am not against the curriculum for excellence in principal, it is an idea that very many countries are moving towards ( even Singapore apparently!). Part of DS1's problem is his personality, he resists help.

Tabularhasa, I see your point, I'm sure DS1 would have moaned about foundation but they used to let them sit foundation and general if they were borderline so that if they had a good day and a favourable paper they could achieve the better result, or was that only true of general and credit (old gimmer who did o- grades).

DH went of to uni at 17 after sixth year but then we all tended to go fairly local and go home at weekends at first so leaving home was a gradual process.

I had a lovely time in sixth year, did one CSYS and spent the rest of the time preparing my portfolio for art college.

Actually that has reminded me of a further advantage of the Scottish system, both my sister and I did Highers in fifth year in subjects that we had not done o- grades in as we changed our minds about what courses we wanted to do later. The broad base of exam subjects and the flexibility of the fifth/sixth year exam mix meant we were able to successfully change direction ( from sciences to art in my case).

mrsjay I am sure you're right and they do it in England too. Not my daughters but nephew and niece. Nephew finds it far too easy and is losing the intellectual curiosity he's always had, which is very sad. Niece has SEN so it's a slightly different kettle of fish - she finds the work difficult because of her learning difficulties, though she is doing in S2 what I did in an English primary (she's in a mainstream class but has additional support).

I must admit I don't really understand the curriculum for excellence though - the idea seems to be that if children are ahead of their year they can take more advanced classes (am I interpreting that correctly?) but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that happening?

Nah, who takes scottish education seriously? Most Scots can't get into real universities having left school at 14 or whatever knowing absolutely nothing of their subjects

I don't know much about Curriculum for Excellence, but I have a few friends who work in education and they all HATE it. There seems to a bit of a consensus that it is rubbish and really hard to implement well. Some of them are predicting unrest and industrial action in the near future.

Wiggly, yes for Standard Grades everyone sits 2 exams either General/Credit or Foundation/General, just to make sure that everyone gets something and to give kids a chance to get a better grade.

When DS1 was sitting his exams, I couldn't believe how easy the work was. I'm ancient and did my O grades in the early 80s and expectations seemed to have really dropped. When I questioned his ability to complete a French Standard grade because he didn't seem to know any French, I was told that he was top of the year and would do very well (in fact he got a clean sweep of 1s.) I was also told by his teacher that I would be horrified at the low level of knowledge expected on modern French courses in schools. They don't even have to do any prose work or write in French at all, apparently. I did CSYS French and we had to write almost everything in French, including essays on things like French student funding or Jean Paul Sartre. So I do think that the curriculum has dumbed down since I was at school.

I agree about the exams seeming easier and am often appalled about the standard of work found in jotters, I was a swot though and DS1 is definitely not.

The standard seems to drop when they start secondary school and takes a long time to pick up again.

It must have been horrible for the kids who were not bright enough to pass o-grades though, they must have left with nothing.

Oh aye, there were lots of kids at my school that left with nothing. I had a friend that took 3 attempts to pass O grade English and O grade arithmetic. She just kept on going until she got 2Cs in 6th year.

In saying that, there are plenty of kids leave the local secondary school with only a few Foundation grades. When DS1 got his 8 grade1s after 4th year, there were only 2 other kids got the same , same in 5th year, 2 only 2 kids got 5As in their highers. But that's because the school performs at less than 1/2 the national average for a whole host of reasons.

I agree about standards dropping when they go to secondary. My DS1 was working at level F in maths and English when he left primary school. When he started at secondary, they put him back to level C, because they had to standardise everyone and that was the lowest common denominator.

I did Higher French and we had to write in French but that was 19 years ago. We studied Balzac.

Catpower, I was that school year too and still 17 (although almost 18) when I left school. My exam results got sent to my old address that year too .

However teething isues aside I do think we have an overall better educational system... integrated 5th and 6th year, free further education and unlike England children are not measured against a test they took aged 11 for the remainder of their education.

DS started nursery at the school he is in now and has had one to one support since, no fight for me, I do think SN provision varies massively even within local authorities. We have great support, but I know we are lucky.

I did Therese, as well, but we didn't get any kind of translation at all. We did go to Glasgow to see the film though, All black and white and atmospheric but no subtitles. We did Les Mains Sales and Huis Clos as well, no translations or study guides there either. We had a separate teacher for Sartre as the normal one hadn't a clue about it.

I went to Edinburgh to do Classics after CSYS Latin and Greek and I was totally out of my depth with the yahs as well. They had done stuff that I had never even heard of, and I was the only Scottish student in the classes as well as the only one from a state school. 'Twas a bit of a nightmare, tbh.

Yes everyone does general at standard grade, but even with a 3 at standard grade you can't do higher in S5, so foundation classes are not going to be doing highers till S6 anyway.

Currently if you get a 5 or 6, you move onto intermediate 1 then intermediate 2. If you get a 3 or 4 you move onto intermediate 2, then higher. If you get a 1 or 2 you go straight onto higher,, then advanced higher or pick up a different higher subject instead.

So now what will happen is that you go in at S4 in a numbered exam and possibly move up from 4 to 5 in S5 instead of doing a completely different course which is the equivalent of sitting just the credit part of standard grade - which is what int 2 is. It actually makes it more straightforward, it's one of the few sensible things about CfE, lol.

I feel really sorry for the current S3s, being the first school year to go through a new curriculum is always going to be a bit of a muddle - but it was so vague and still unfinished when it was implemented that I think they've been massively let down. Schools are doing their best, but I know that in English, schools were already having to invent and teach the course before anyone was even appointed to design the assessments. Obviously no-one wants to be teaching to the test, but to be three months into teaching a course and having no idea what the assesments are going to be is ludicrous.

My dd is currently S3 as well.

tabulahrasa - I don't know what you mean about "being 3 months into teaching a course and having no idea what the assesments are going to be is ludicrous. "

The new courses for National 4 and 5 shouldn't be taught until next year with assessments at the end of the year.

None of the assesments were in place, not just the exams - the 5-14 ones were gone and nothing was put in their place until well after the current S3 had started S1 already.

imogengladhart my ds has had 1 to 1 support, with Speech therapist coming to school, support from learning teacher out of class, social skills group, all at school since he started nursery at 3, attached to local rural primary school - I live in Scotland, I think SN support is variable across UK and everyone either fights the school/LA for support or they are lucky, like my DS has been and the school falls over backwards to help. DS is in P4 now and still has one to one support and has thrived at school - I don't think SN support is better in England seeing the fight people on the SN boards have to get help.