What's going wrong with Scottish education??

[TinfoilHattie]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39856284

Obviously very tempting to start another SNP bashing thread and I'm pretty clear that the blame for this lies at their door. It's shocking that performance is getting worst, not better and that less than half of S2s are performing well or very well in writing. It's all very well Swinney standing up and saying that it's not good enough but WHY is it not good enough and WHAT is he going to do about it?

Is it Curriculum for Excellence? Are the tests unrealistic? Funding? Changing expectations?

It's all very interesting for me as I have children in P4, P7 and S2 and those are the years which are tested. My kids are doing fine and I have no worries about them, but we're a family which values education and encourages reading. I do worry though about my daughter who spelled her new school as "Acadmay" and it wasn't corrected by the teacher.

So what's going wrong and how do we put it right?

The boys have done stuff on Khan academy but I think it was programming and stuff. I can't comment on the other books but the Maths one is good.

I know my friend's daughter (P4?) is doing a lot of Sumdog stuff for homework with their school - there seems to be English stauff available with them too.

It would be better to see a breakdown of the 35% of achieved 3 or more Highers. Obviously there would be issues re privacy etc there.

Howabout has explained better than me how there are different ways to look at the stats.

I do know that over 26% of pupils at ds' school get 5 or more Highers. Also over 25% get at least one Advanced Higher. I also came across one anomaly when trying to look at the raw data: in many of the spreadsheets, the "latest & best" result is counted. So if someone does an Advanced Higher, then only the Advanced Higher will be counted when looking at how many qualifications at any level that leaver has achieved by the time they left school So for lazy analysts, schools offering lots of Advanced Highers (and the pupils passing them) will look as if they are not getting a high percentage of Leavers with Highers

The school performs above "expectation" (according to SIMD/FSM - which apparently has historically been understated as Govanhill has only recently been recategorised as SIMD1) for all the categories except I think the bottom 20% where the % going to "positive destinations" is slightly lower than they would want it to be. (Obviously the target is 100% - assuming that all the kids who started school are still there when they reach school leaving age)

Percentages are, I think based on the S3 cohort - but with many transient pupils (asylum seekers, Roma), then almost immediately you are not starting from a base of 100.

The Parent Council fundraises so that it can provide an Achievement Fund for the school to ensure that no pupils misses out on educational opportunities due to lack of funds (eg Duke of Edinburgh, school trips amongst other things). I'm sure other parent councils do the same - but I don't have experience of them.

Ds ( yes, nice middle class boy ) has friends in his top sets who are not as comfortably off. It's good for him to see that not everyone is as fortunate as him. He has many Muslim friends - some well off, some not.

The children I see at other local schools are also encouraged to do well.

As an aside (and dig at myself), I did have to laugh internally when ds recently said he was "mortified" at the way he had just spoken to me. I had to restrain myself from complimenting his English while accepting his apology - but I did give a mental "tick" to his English teacher

I do know that over 26% of pupils at ds' school get 5 or more Highers.

all the categories except I think the bottom 20% where the % going to "positive destinations" is slightly lower than they would want it to be.

But that's the point many many people have been making- CfE is alright if you are middle class and you're in the 26% with 5 or more Highers. If the top sets are dominated by rugby playing middle class children with a smattering of the most determined and brightest EAL children, of course things will look rosy.

We are still hugely divided by class, even in so-called comprehensive schools.

@Arkadia
SIMD = Scottish index of multiple deprivation based on postcode. 1 is most deprived and 5 is least deprived

VC = virtual comparator calculated by taking a representative sample of pupils from across the country with similar characteristics to the individual school. VC base scores are adjusted to take account of whether the pupils compared left in S4, 5 or 6

Worth bearing in mind that for some cohorts in some schools the numbers being compared may be too small for sensible statistical analysis. One pupil performing well or badly can have a big impact on a small % SIMD group. In large schools with homogeneous intakes the stats are more reliable.

I just did a quick google for some English comparison. The report I read suggested only 36% of all English students study any A levels at all. There was concern that there is uneven provision of access to A levels with participation rates below 10% in some areas.

Red my DC's secondary doesn't set at all below S3 and then only loosely for English and Maths.

I agree there is a huge attainment gap but my experience with my own DC and their classmates is in line with the research which suggests that the gap exists well before school age and that early disadvantage tends to compound regardless of educational approach. My DC's respective primary and secondary schools both have significant new attainment gap funding so time will tell whether it makes an impact.

There's something counter-intuitive about some of this, for me. At our (supposedly well above average) school the children in S1 seem to be well behind where they were at our very average primary school in England, there is no setting and almost no differentiation, almost no homework, everything very laid back, no sense of rigour that I've come across so far. And yet I'm told that the advanced highers in S6, one year earlier than A'levels in England, are harder than A'levels? I don't buy it.

Interesting piece from director of education saying that in 2010 they would have 20-200 applicants for teaching jobs. Now they are lucky to get any. One of the hardest to fill is Primary heads. Any coincidence with CfE?

Also lack of supply teachers. Do they still only get bottom of scale pay for single days of cover?

Add to this the ridiculous zero exclusions policy and I think he has his answer

Are there any comparative stats for things like the Maths Challenge? It would probably still be difficult to compare I suppose as each challenge covers a few school years and I think schools have different entry policies.

In DSs school they pull names from a hat, 2 to 3 children from each maths class, other schools submit their best pupils without limit of numbers.

We've been told by a few different sources that DSs primary is notorious for sending all the kids up to high school at least a year behind in Maths yet DS1 still got a Silver Award in the Maths Challenge in 1st year.

In the SSLM the drop in writing scores of 15 points between 2012 and 2016 compares the cohort of my eldest with last year's S2s. If it's not an anomaly then it's a worry for those coming after!

My child was in the first group to go through CfE BUT the primary teachers certainly were still using older methods.
There had been a lot of retirement and new teachers coming in so the effects of CfE may be coming through gradually.

After reading this thread last night I asked DD(6) today what she did at school.

She said they were doing X book. I ask if she was reading it or did she write about it? "Well Miss Y read it to us this morning and then we all had to make a book cover of it, I did mines the same as the book but just without the leaves".

Now I do realise that 6 year olds can't always be trusted to tell the whole truth but when you add stories like this to the fact her jotters are empty I am utterly confused about how they actually learn anything.

I feel like she could be colouring in on Saturday mornings without the need for this Mon- Fri too.

Where did I say the top sets were "dominated" by middle class, rugby playing pupils ? That's an assumption that has been made by others Only one other rugby player, who himself has been playing for years, is in the top sets with ds, (to reiterate, the top sets do have a mix of ethnicities and demographics). In the lower years, there is a real mix (both boys & girls play - most of whom had never played or even thought to play before S1).

I had mentioned the rugby out of honesty because that was why I did the placing request. Not because the school is "middle class", which it's not - it's very mixed (and proud of the fact) . St Andrews, a school in the East End, is also a "school of rugby". Are they to be judged as "middle class" as well?

The school is also a School of Basketball and has looked at other sports to get involved formally to enhance the outcomes for its pupils. Sport (and football, music, gymnastics and other extra curricular activities etc) as a way to motivate pupils who wouldn't otherwise be engaged. I presume it fits in with a "healthy mind in a healthy body" ethos. It seems to work as the results are improving year on year (despite CfE ).

Howabout is better than me at describing SIMD and Virtual Comparitors (iirc, the difference of "expected outcome" v VC at ds' school was something like 1% - which could equate to one kid that they've lost touch with - but that's one kid too many ). The outcomes are improving for the bottom 20%. A lot of effort is going into it - and now a lot of extra funding which hopefully is going to be well spent

Where the "middle class" thing comes in is the correlation of success between parental engagement and "class" (as an aside, I've just answered a YouGov survey saying that the UK is still very much defined by class - & the fact that I'm talking about it here just proves it ). That's something that many (all?) schools are trying to work on - getting the parents involved as that in itself will improve the outcomes for kids. There are all sorts of barriers to that: language for one, extreme poverty, culture.....but it needs to be done. (I've had no involvement in ds' studying or homework for years as he just does it but we'd count as "involved" as at least we're interested and go along to all the parents' evenings and if there were a problem would get more proactively involved).

Hamiltoes, Statistically, my DD is 6 too and I just remembered the other strong impression i had from when they send their work home for parents to inspect - a hell of a lot of it wasn't completed. In fact it was distressing to see that she'd done a few questions on so much of it and then not been prompted to complete it.

I suppose this is what happens, you experience a couple of years of worrying teaching and you start upping your game at home if you can.

Does anyone know whether Advanced highers actually are tougher exams than A'levels? And how they can be, when pupils only spend 1 year on them, rather than the 2 years spent on A'levels?
There seem to be opportunities in Scotland to take highers in only 1 year. This again makes me wonder whether highers are even as tough as GCSEs, though I know they're meant to be tougher (and bear in mind that in England it is usual to take around 9 GCSEs, with some children taking 12). In England, you wouldn't usually take a GCSE after only 1 year, and in most cases would have been studying the subject for 5 years.

Iirc, an A at Advanced Higher or A level today is worth the same in UCAS points, but a B for an Advanced Higher is worth more than an A Level B. Advanced Highers require a lot of self-directed study (so I believe: I'll find out next year when ds is doing his AHs ), so as such are a good preparation for Uni.

Ds will be doing a crash Higher in Modern Studies next year but remember - he had already done 2 years of it in his first 2 years at secondary. Courses aren't "just" done in one year - they are built on a base of knowledge. That's like saying a Maths or English A Level is just 2 years study . No, it includes all the years at primary school and secondary, building an understanding of mathematical principles or an awareness of English literature and English grammar (and developing a "voice" as one of ds' English teachers would say).

I remember (and of course this is just anecdote, not data and it was a looong time ago ) being shocked at how little my English (A level) fellow students were ahead of me when I went to Uni (from 5th year: St Andrews, so a majority of English students). This was despite having had 2/3 more time to follow the courses than me (once you account for Prelims/Mocks: 6 months for Higher study, 18 months for A Levels) and a narrower range of subjects (I had done 6 Highers, they had done 3 A Levels)

I teach AH (English) and used to teach A Level. AH is meant to be more like an Undergraduate 1st year in a Scottish University. For English, only 40% of the course is actually "taught"

Literary Study (20%) - they study 2 texts by the same writer (more if it is poetry) and write an essay on 2 of them. My pupils have done things like 2 Shakespeare plays, 2 Austen novels etc etc. We tend to do this several times over so they have a choice in the exam - as they only write 1 essay. We do this on a timetabled lesson time of about an hour a week.

Textual Analysis - used to be called a range of things (Practical Criticism?) but is analysing a text they have never seen before, again in an exam. Worth 20% but is really a test of their ability, not of their teaching and so is much more Uni like.

The rest is a Dissertation - totally their own choice but involving "meaty" literature. Pupils I have supervised have done things like Hardy, Atwood, Chaucer, Duffy, Swift etc. This is worth 30% and there is a further Creative folio - again done on their own, also worth 30%. We guide them with this part of the course but the work is all there own and there is no teaching time - we just meet to agree deadlines and a focus for their work.

@NoLottery, if it is of any consolation, same here (P3, though). When I happen to see any work done by my DD1 (thankfully it happens very seldom) I want to tear my hear out...

Also, DS has done a couple of AHs in the past (Physics, French, History and Latin) and all of them are very much self-study a lot of the time and involve big chunky dissertations. The Physics one seemed to involve a lot of complicated equipment, as I recall. His Latin and History both had chunky dissertations on complex topics.

Actually, I have gone an looked at the UCAS tariff calculator. Only an A* at A level is the equivalent of an A at Advanced Higher (both worth 56 points). A "plain" A at A Level is worth 48 points. Bs are worth 40 for an A Level and 48 for an Advanced Higher (so the equivalent of an A at A Level).

Most AHs are done after doing a Higher in the relevant subject, so it is building on what has gone before - a bit like AS Levels (although AS levels are worth "less" than Highers and are also on the way out/being discouraged now? ).

Similarly, even though it is indeed possible to do crash Highers, it is highly unusual to do the more technical subjects without having a base in a related subject. For example, Crash Biology or Chemistry was/is possible, as long as you have already done Chemistry/Biology - that is how some schools get away with not offering the option of doing all three sciences: you do the third one in 6th year.

Tariff calculator here : www.ucas.com/ucas/tariff-calculator

Bugger - I even previewed that on the laptop because of the "A*" - but it has still mucked up the formatting. Where the bold starts is meant to be "A Star at A level" and then the "Most" at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph should have been in bold.

whistler my DH is English and English educated and we have dozens of friends and relatives in the English system - this is a comparison conversation we have regularly.

6th year in Scotland is not one year earlier than England, it is exactly the same point. English pupils go to school 1 year longer because they start younger in YR. P1 in Scotland is equivalent to Y1 in England.

It is true that English students start secondary a year earlier than Scotland, which is why I think broadening out the primary curriculum to include science, MFL and humanities is the right direction for CfE. However it is not true that Scottish students sit Nat 5s after 1 year of study. They go into subject areas in S1 and gradually narrow down to 7ish Nat 5 subjects by S4.

I had a look at the new English Progress 8 framework yesterday. An academic student in England would be strongly encouraged to follow the EBac with triple science. This would give them English x2, Maths, science x3, MFL and History or Geography plus compulsory RE in some cases. The new curriculum has effectively squeezed out Arts and tech teaching for academic students in England - 9 GCSEs but very little choice. In contrast my Scottish DD1 covered all the same areas to S3 before selecting Nat 5 Maths, English, Physics, Chemistry and History and still had room for Art and Graph Comm Nat 5s (7 in total). She could pick up a whole range of dropped subjects in S5/6 at a combination of Nat 5/6.

Some schools make all pupils sit Nat 4 / 5 PE and RE in Scotland since they are compulsory subjects anyway. Some offer triple science as an option but most take the view that biology can be a 1 year higher if pupils have the other 2. Some make a MFL compulsory. I know some East Renf pupils doing 10 Nat 5s. No employer / Uni will ever be impressed with their Nat 5 PE and RE or even MFL (as there are plenty native speakers to outcompete them) but it makes the school stats look better.

In terms of UCAS points 5 Highers at A give slightly more than 3 A levels at A. Advanced Highers are worth slightly more than A levels under the new bands (2017) - I only researched because I was weighing up the pros and cons of piano exams.

Advanced Highers build on the higher course and so could broadly be viewed as Higher being lower 6th and Advanced Higher being upper 6th.

Cross post with pretty

UCAS comparisons

5 A Highers = 33x5 = 165 (after 5th year)

3 A* A Levels =56x3 = 168 (after 6th year)

The target outcome for a 5 A 5th year student after 6th year.

4 A Highers plus 2 A Advanced Highers = 33x4 + 56x2 = 244

Howabout and I often seem to cross post - but she always explains things so much more clearly and succinctly than me

The confusion about the school years seems to arise because of the c.6 month difference in the cut-off dates (a rigid September in England v a flexible March in Scotland) and also because we often talk about P1 being the equivalent of Reception. It's not - it's the equivalent of Y1. Scotland just doesn't have a Reception Year, so children start P1 at anything between 4.5 and nearly 6 (September/October in practice being the young end of the year, despite technically being in the middle )

There are 13 years "formal" schooling in both systems: P1-P7 in primary in Scotland, then S1-S6 at secondary, with the first formal exams in S4 (the 11th year), followed by University entrance exams in S5 & S6 (Highers/Advanced Highers/more Nat 5s); Y1-Y6 (plus optional Reception) in primary in England, then Y7-Y11 at secondary before GCSEs, then A levels at the end of Y13.

Most schools in Scotland will continue to the end of S6 - it's rare for schools only to go to S4 (unlike in England when you have to find a 6th form college). They're also judged on the number of Highers they achieve - not the number of Nat 5s.

The other difference is that it is possible to go to Uni in Scotland after S5 (as I did) but that is becoming less common. I got an acceptance from Leeds Uni too - but they did say I'd have to do an "extra" year (iirc - it was a long time ago and St Andrews was always my first choice). The historic reason for that is the 4 year Scottish Undergraduate degree with its more broadly based 1st year.

Just browsing the summary Tory Manifesto. They have a pledge to make sure all 11 year olds know their times tables. Apparently it doesn't already happen in England and I agree with pp that age 8 would be a better target.

Howabout, my children are in the English system and I don't recognise some of the info you've given.
They are at an academic school. At present AS levels are being phased out although a few subjects such as Maths still have an AS.
Pupils sit this at the end of Lower 6th.
Alevels are now linear in design and are examined at the end of 6th Year ( internal school exams along the way of course)
English exams are becoming more rigorous in an effort to improve academic standards.
There has been no narrowing of subject choice for my children.
What you have to remember is that the English system is much more complex. There are Free schools, academies, religious schools etc.
As well as GCSEs, some pupils sit IGCSEs.
There are also different exam boards. Schools choose specific exam boards for their pupils, for example as I understand it, an academic school would choose an exam board which produces more challenging exams or exams which better suit their pupils.
EPQs are also offered in some schools. These are extended projects more akin to undergraduate study - I think there is something similar in Scotland.
I'm not sure there is much benefit in trying to compare systems especially when you don't have first hand experience.
The direction of travel in England is to make the exams tougher.
My children have done their SATs and there was no great fuss. The school handled it brilliantly, most children took them in their stride and I have always had a clear idea about how my children are getting on and what they are doing. This has been my experience of state and private.
From reading this thread, I've been amazed at some of the comments. I had a brilliant Scottish education.
What is clear, is that some schools are handling CfE well, while others aren't.
It all sounds a bit inward looking. I left school with a very strong sense of identity without needing special classes in what it means to be Scottish!
It's all very well discussing everyone's high achieving teens but what about all the other children left behind? For many children from poorer backgrounds, their academic destiny has been determined by the time they are 6 or 7 and it doesn't include doing Advanced Highers.
For all the SNPs posturing about being progressive and maintaining the moral high ground on just about everything, it doesn't look like they've been doing very good job.

I think in many cases children's academic destiny is decided by virtue of where their parents live - there's a huge difference in the quality of schools from one area to the next and that has a big impact.

I went to primary school in a very poor area (middle of a council estate, very few children in my class had one working parent let alone two) but I basically refused (yes I was stubborn even at 10!) to go to the local school, went through the league tables which were published in the local paper and made my mum apply for an out of catchment place. I was lucky in that I got it - admittedly if I hadn't I'd have made her apply for half the schools in Edinburgh before I'd have gone to my local high school.

One other girl from my school went to the same high school as me. She was probably averagely intelligent (no insult meant, just explaining!) but she went on to get a decent enough set of highers that she got a nursing degree. She was one of a group of girls of kind of similar intellect and ability in my primary school class - those who went to the local high school pretty much all left at the end of 4th year. I don't think any of them went to uni at all, most who I still have an awareness of either don't work at all or are working in very low paid jobs.

I went back to my primary school - I was asked to do a talk to the P7s after getting in to Oxford, to talk about what applying for uni and things was like. I vividly remember standing at the front of this classroom in front of about 60 kids and one of the teachers (not the one who had taught me) saying to them "I can think of a few of you who could go to university" and just being so utterly fucked off with her. Every kid in that room knew who she was talking about, and every kid who wasn't one of that few was instantly diminished and demoralised. I actually argued back and said something like any of you can do this if you really want to

But...she'd been at that school for at least 20 years if not longer, and generally taught the older years - she always have one of the P6 or 7 classes. Realistically she probably taught half of the kids who came through that school; how many of them had she basically told to aim low?