Scottish identity

[chocoluvva]

Do you feel you have one?

If you're not Scottish living in Scotland, do you think there is a Scottish identity?

The first full CfE cohort are just about to take the new Highers.

The implementation of CfE was/still is a mess, complete chaos and what's worse it could have been avoided if they'd listened to teachers.

But, there's less focus on Scottish history in the CfE than there is on English history in the English curriculum at the same stages...

Previously some schools were very good at including Scottish history and showing it within the wider context of world history... others weren't, they taught WW2 without including anything that was happening in Scotland for example. It's not parochial to teach the history of the country you live in, it may end up that way in some schools, but you can see that the intent in the curriculum as a whole is to tie in pupils understanding of Scotland within the rest of the world, not just Scotland...every single subject that now has to have Scottish content it's all in relation to the wider contexts.

CfE isn't a bad idea, it's based on fairly successful ideas from other countries, just badly planned and managed - it kind of sums up the SNP in a lot of ways, good ideas but no follow through, lol.

CfE has broad cross party support (although I disagree with some of the emphasis in the English and History syllabuses) but I don't think it has been implemented well. Someone I know who works in the Scottish Government blames local councils for it.

CfE was originally proposed under Lab/Lib wasn't it?

"CfE was originally proposed under Lab/Lib wasn't it?"

I think so...I do know that when it was time to roll it out it was an SNP project, schools were feeding back that it wasn't ready to go and were ignored.

I suspect because either way it was going to be a stick to beat politicians with - as in, stick to the dates even though not everything was in place and be criticised for that or delay it and be criticised for that...

I think they made the wrong choice as although either reflects badly, delaying wouldn't have affected pupils.

I've heard teachers blaming the government, someone who works in the government blaming teachers, both blaming the council - so far my only experience as a parent is at nursery and primary, and I feel communication with parents isn't good and the school seem to be always putting in a new initiative which is then never heard of again. I've seen a leaflet that's meant to explain the new exam/assessment structure to parents and it is incredibly badly written (fortunately it was shown to me by someone who worked in a nearby dept but not responsible for it, because I was fairly frank about it) so I'm hoping that everything becomes clearer soon (child going to S1 in August).

Changing exams is always major. I remember standard grades coming in when I was at school and there was a lot of worry about it. I can't remember how much discussion there was before then, and of course that was before the Scottish parliament. My year sat Standard Grade English and Maths but all the other subjects were O Grades.

My DS is just in the door from sitting his NAT 5 History.

In his school, generally regarded as a good one, well over half the students failed their English NAT 5 prelim. Only 2 got an 'A' in a year of 400 (sitting Nat 4&5). It's a complete shambles. Ditto maths.

The other subjects don't seem so badly affected though it depends which department you talk to as to whether they think candidates will get a NAT 4 if they fail they're Nat 5 exam. Despite being in the second cohort there still wasn't a computing text book published for him.
Candidates last year were told by teachers no to worry too much - with the referendum coming the SNP would not allow CfE to visibly fail. Don't know how much of that was opinion or fact but it was lots of teachers saying it.

their

"I don't think CfE has been going long enough to draw any conclusions?" Hmmmm... I'm not in Scotland, but my understanding is that it was brought in from 2010, so five years ago. So the 12yos (I think?) who were tested in the recent numeracy and literacy tests would have been in CforE since age 7 or 8 (?). I would say that we should be seeing some of the results coming through by now, in any case.

I don't know...I'm just going on what I've heard, but the CforE sounds really loosey-goosey to me. Very child-led, project-based-learning, inquiry based, skill-based, 21st century competencies, blah blah blah. I think I've seen this movie before.

It was based on an Australian curriculum which was widely regarded as a failure and was subsequently dropped.

It was brought in fo the current Higher year so I think that's 12 years. (Although I was "educated" under progressive initiatives in 70s/80s England that Scotland was spared!)

What I meant was that at the same time as the CofE introduction budgets were being cut. If we ever get back into a financial state where we can afford optimal number if teachers/smaller class sizes/enough resources etc then we would be able to properly assess the impact.

At the moment is has only been going over a period of budget cuts which also has a negative impact on outcomes - it is not possible to say whether it is lack of money or the curriculum causing issues.

"I've heard teachers blaming the government, someone who works in the government blaming teachers, both blaming the council"

I trained as a teacher, so possibly biased, lol. I'm not in schools currently but I can tell you that schools were having to start teaching the curriculum at least 6 months before the person who was going to write the assessments was even appointed in some subjects - so literally nobody knew what they were supposed to be teaching towards, all they had were the outcomes and experiences, which are the vaguest things I've ever read.

Departments were managing to plan by cannibalising the old curriculum and trying to incorporate the experiences and outcomes they had, but it was a ridiculous state to be in.

I don't know what the general standards are like I just know that my DS was always near top of his year in English and maths at Primary school and in top sets at High School and has failed his prelims allow with the majority of his peers. It's really worrying.

We were sold CfE many years ago as joined up learning. Writing a History essay would also count in English if it was well written, geography if it was talking about population movement etc. None of that is present in the curriculum now.

nolassie - my DS is older and so didn't do CfE, he had whole classes failing prelims as well, it happens, sometimes it's an issue with an individual teacher, sometimes it's the prelim paper used, sometimes it's because there's something going wrong within the department and usually it's a combination of those things, so while I'm not saying it can't be the new curriculum - it won't be that alone.

Personally from what I've seen the cross curricular stuff is more the fault of schools, well SMT in schools anyway, rather than looking at how they could usefully combine subjects, there was a tendency to have little token projects that weren't useful or meaningful and everything else stayed separate, which is not what was intended at all. It was supposed to be more how primary schools work where you're tying subjects together to make what they're learning relevant.

OOAOML I think identity can be quite varied and fluid - at various time you might feel more one thing than another. And your official nationality might not necessarily be your identity.

My mother's side of the family all come from a small part of Scotland which referred to themselves not as Scottish, but as from that area. Scotland was referred to as another place, and when anyone appeared on tv with a very slang central Scottish accent, my granny used to say things like "that's a disgrace". But to be honest, it can be hard to understand for someone who comes from 350 miles away. Its also a part of Scotland that was very heavily "No" in the Referendum, and one which might possibly have voted to stay as part of the UK rather than Scotland, had the vote been "Yes" for independence. So the notion of a Scottish identity does seem rather strange. Maybe different from most of Scotland. But since it is part of Scotland now, no less relevant or important.

My DS sat Nat 5 history this morning too - waves at Nolassie

Last year - first lot of Nat 5s - the schools were advised, mid-session that they must present in-class work for external assessment which contributed something like 25% of the students' total marks! Understandably, there was mass outrage. My DS' school routinely enter their pupils for 8 subjects -usually all or mostly nat 5s - but from next year pupils will do 7 subjects. The number of subjects taken at nat 5 level is at the discretion of different regions. I hope it settles down into a standard (or usual) number taken; how are employers/FE/HE institutions meant to understand the qualifications?

It really does seem like a bit of a mess. I dislike the fact that it's very difficult to enter candidates for exams privately now too - well, I assume it is, because of the in-class controlled condition assessments worked on with the teacher then finished individually or sometimes as a group effort. Presumably you'd have to attend a recognised educational institute to be allowed to sit these exams. I don't know how that compares with other exam bodies, but it does seem like a restriction. Eg, if a pupil wanted to sit an extra subject, working through the syllabus on their own they wouldn't be able to do all the assessments. IYSWIM. I think the controlled assessments done in English schools are being dropped or reduced?

NS does seem a bit chippy/ready for a fight to me, as a cover up for a certain lack of content. I don't especially admire her - but then I know plenty of female lawyers who probably have more talent, including in public speaking, are harder working, are more clever, have more varied experience, than her. I'm not denigrating her, but she is hardly the best Scotland has to offer (and I'm sure that she would not claim to be). But I can't really get into this heroine-worship sort of mindset.

Jim Murphy I find worryingly slightly fascinating. I think he might have hypnotised me. But not enough to vote for him (if my vote ever arrives).

Ruth Davidson seems excellent.

AS seems to me a bit mad. I think he is sociopathic to some extent. It would not be unlikely, as many politicians probably are.

David Cameron has grown into the job and seems more statesmanlike as time goes on. I think he is doing a good job.

Miliband is ineffectual and increasingly scrambling for vote winning policies at the last minute.

I'm pro-Europe so wouldn't vote for UKIP if I had the chance.

If the Lib Dems ever achieved anything worthwhile, it might then be worth voting for them. But its been a long time coming.

I really find all the hate type comments, castigating politicians as being against the poor, etc. a bit off-putting. It always puts me in mind of a bunch of mediaveal peasants in a film being urged into a frenzy on behalf of whatever lord of the manor is currently in situ.

Yes, it's apparent the 'The snp can do wrong' and complete trust in them that frustrates me.

Eg, during the indy-ref: 'How will indy benefit Scotland's economy?' - 'Well we'll have control of our revenues so we'll make good choices for the economy.' But no yes campaigner could ever explain or predict what these choices would be.

And the apparent reluctance to accept that there could even be faults in the SNP.

But, as another poster said, they haven't been in power for all that long so their popularity is likely to decrease.

The Nicola Sturgeon popularity thing will probably create a lot of disappointment further down the line too, IMO. Like celebrity culture where the higher the person is built up the harder they will fall. Tony Blair was very popular, for a while. Now, he's very unpopular.

The Nicola Sturgeon popularity thing will probably create a lot of disappointment further down the line too, IMO. Like celebrity culture where the higher the person is built up the harder they will fall. Tony Blair was very popular, for a while. Now, he's very unpopular.

I don't find her in the least bit charismatic, and find it astonishing that people do (do they never really meet more impressive people in their day to day lives?). I just find her overly shouty and angry. In general, I prefer a more quiet, measured approach rather than a "who shouts the loudest" one preferable. I think trying to find real differential content in any of the parties' policies, never mind a hero/heroine leader, is naiave.

That said, David Cameron, although he has his faults, is probably more of my preferred quiet type (and he did visit Shetland on the eve of the Referendum to discuss it being given a Referendum to remain in the UK in the event of independence, although the Scottish press mistook it for discovery of an oilfield), and Boris Johnstone is charismatic and involved - no cause seems too small and he has an eye for detail. I think the Conservative Party is lucky to have two such politicians at the present time. And if you're going to criticise their background, then make sure you criticise the Scottish elite who are doing very well out of public contracts and their old school tie networks.

I said exactly the same thing this morning choco. I find the blind faith in the SNP quite disturbing. It's like a cult or a religion.

At some point they will realise that the SNP and sturgeon etc are politicians like all the others, they lie and deceive and talk in half truths. It amuses me that I keep seeing yes voters telling no voters to open their eyes when they are the ones with the blinkers on.

I don't find her charismatic either - but I can see why people like her - she gives the impression of taking no nonsense, being down to earth, having faith in her convictions and as other posters have said, being 'ordinary'. She doesn't have the problem that the 'old boys' have of people thinking, 'Well you're rich and come from a rich family so what do you know about the effects of your policies on 'ordinary' people (ie like me).

TBH, IMO she deserves to have either a medal for putting up with Alec Salmond, or serious questioning about why she put(s) up with him.

Boris Johnson comes across as very clever to me. I've heard that Ed M. is also very clever. I don't get a sense of that from Nicola Sturgeon.

Mind you, being clever can only get you so far in politics.

The snp is very good at campaigning (unfortunately IMO)

Do you think Boris is doing the bumbling buffoon thing deliberately Choc? I cannot see him as PM. Ed seems to be getting more confident these days, I can see him as PM. Hopefully not Cameron again. Especially not after he threw Labour under a bus on 19th September.

TheChandler, I think I want to marry you! My thoughts, your words!

"I'm pro-Europe so wouldn't vote for UKIP if I had the chance."

Do you not have a UKIP candidate? I do, I suspect UKIP put him forward as a laugh more than anything as it's a 22 yr old standing on a platform of being "sick of the country being ran into the ground by pseudo-intellectual schoolboys who have never done a hard day's work in their life." As opposed to his years of life experience I assume?

"I find the blind faith in the SNP quite disturbing. It's like a cult or a religion."

Not for everyone, there are plenty of people who are plumping for them as the slightly better of a bad lot of options...me included.

I'll happily criticise them where I think it's due, it doesn't change the fact that I'm currently not happy to vote for any of the main parties.

I think Cameron is well controlled usually rather than a quiet type, but sometimes lets the arrogance leak. I would welcome a very well educated leader but then doesn't always seem to know his history which surprises me.

Johnson has charisma but so what. He is an elitist who doesn't translate outside of London or the moneyed world imo.

I can't see Boris as PM either, OOAOML (although I enjoy his excellent vocabulary.)

tabulahrasa - snp supporters seem to be either like you, 'best of a bad lot' or have 'blind faith' in them as far as I can see.

I feel the other main parties have lost their way - they've drifted such a long way from their original aims and resort to a hotchpotch of bribes aimed at the people most likely to vote for them. And I get the impression that a lot of politicians don't really have an interest in political philosophy/economics or a genuine sense of vocation.

At least the main three parties originally had some justifiable principles. But wanting to dismantle the UK...... If the snp were to admit defeat and put their money where their mouth is vis a vis properly thought out socialist or left-wing policies; use their experience of governing to start afresh with a new party without reference to independence I might be interested! At the moment you can't trust that their stated ideals are anything other than a bribe for the scottish voters who are dis-enchanted with the status quo.

I agree with many of their policies but suspicious of their real intentions.

Ideally I'd have a mix of lib dem, green, snp and labour policies.