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?

Cream my comments on the English system were a specific response to others views that Scotland is offering a narrower curriculum. This is patently not the case.

The comments made also suggested that Highers were akin to GCSEs when Nat 5 is in fact the relevant comparison. There was a more general concern about the value of Highers and Advanced Highers. I thought since the poster in question has a pupil in S1 in Scotland it was worth spending the time to outline the progression through S4-S6. I am aware of all the various types of schools and alternative qualifications and the different SAT tests etc but that would make for a much longer conversation.

I agree that it is difficult to make direct comparisons especially as most commentators seem unaware that Scotland still has a non-selective uniform catchment system with schools running through to 18 and England does not.

Both Scotland, and England have 7 years of Primary School.

But Scotland only has 6 years at Secondary, England has 7. (3 years, the 2 years of GCSEs then 2 years of A Levels)

But, HamletsSister - Reception is optional in England. The first compulsory years of schooling are Y1 and P1. 7+6 (Scotland: Primary plus secondary) = 6+7 (England: Primary plus secondary) = 13

Both systems say compulsory schooling must start the school year after the child turns 5.

Why can't I comment from my phone? Anyway...
@statistically, that is SO sad on so MANY levels... That teacher must be so exhausted and empty after so many years, no wonder she says what she says.
I have to say, I keep believing that the best thing it can happen to a deprived area of Glasgow is if they opened a grammar or whatever selective school you can think of, otherwise how are people going to get out of the ghetto? It is all very well to talk principles, etc, but not when it comes to YOUR child (Diane Abbott comes to mind...) as you have only ONE shot with them.
In any case, as I read in another thread, what makes a school better is not so much the post code, but the parents' involvement and the hopes they are willing to go through to get their children in, so that school will get better, attract more involved parents, etc and house prices will go up, and in so doing that school is selective by postcode. Wouldn't it better to get more Jordanhills all around Glasgow rather than parking lots for youngsters? Then the CfE probably wouldn't matter that much.

The best thing that would happen for many deprived areas would be reopening the behaviour units. There should be a flat rule- three incidents of violent behaviour and you are out.

More S.S. also need opened.

It is unbelievable what children, support staff and teachers are supposed to put up with in the guise of inclusion. Teachers are not having the time to teach because they're so busy calming down the same children and placating them.

I feel there is value in comparing the different systems if we share BEST practice rather than pointing out what isn't as good over the border.
I think early years education in particular is so incredibly important in determining equality of opportunity for our children which leads us back to some of the original concerns about literacy and numeracy levels.

I'm not really sure what the issue is with the lack of attainment in deprived areas. I don't think there is an easy answer.

In my own case, both DH and I were brought up in large families in council estates in poverty in the 1960s.

Our parents worked but in low paid low skilled jobs. There was very little in the way benefits so if they didn't work, we didn't eat. We often went hungry and cold.

School was something we went to and our parents really had nothing to do with it. Their ambitions for us were limited to hoping that we would get a decent job. Out of the 13 DC (both DH's and my families), none went to Uni from school. All of us got jobs from school even in the mass unemployment of the early 80's.

Some of us went back to study. Everyone ended up a home owner with decent jobs/their own businesses and our children have mostly either gone or are likely to go to Uni. If we had to apply a class, most of our parents grandchildren are middle class (in terms of job, where they live, attitudes etc).

I don't know why we've ended up in the position we have based on where we came from. Our parents weren't educated, they were ambivalent about our education (as long as we were behaving, they were happy) and had little ambition for us. So why did it work for us and it doesn't still seem to be working? We weren't special, we were raised in harder times. Was it simply the good example shown in terms of hard work and diligence and a stable-ish homelife?

I agre: Statistically - that is a depressing story - but kudos to you for not accepting it (not just as a 10 year old but as a returner demonstrating higher aspirations).

Re middle class catchments ensuring good results - while I agree, I'll add that they're not necessarily "good" schools, because they are just catering for the motivated kids. I have often said that my school (Bearsden Academy) was not as good a school (in my time) as the school my mum taught at (Clydebank High School) - despite the plethora of S5 kids (me included) who got 6 As at Higher. Bearsden Academy just cared about the clever kids (like us) and put the rest on the scrap heap (my mum was a probationer there when I was in S1 both she and I started school there together and yet she was given the ROSLAs - the class of "Raising the School Leaving Age" kids who resented strongly being forced to stay an extra year at school ) whereas the school that she taught at later (in a promoted post), Clydebank High, was much better at getting the best out of all its pupils.

I'm not sure whether CfE has helped or hindered that today. I think the key differentiator remains (as I've mentioned before ) the quality of the headteacher and the ethos generated by the SMT.

Many children who, just a few years ago would have reached a decent standard of attainment are no longer able to do so. This is because precious PSA time that helped them that little bit more is now being used with behaviour needs.

We have pupils who have educational needs but are told they don't qualify for support because they don't have challenging behaviour.

One teacher was told to Fuck Off yesterday by a pupil. If he's allowed back into school tomorrow she's going to walk out, go to her doctor and get signed off with stress. Maybe if more people did this the authorities would take notice. There would be hardly any staff left in our school as this is a daily occurrence.

Totally agree Danyella.

The sad bit about reading your post was that I initially scoffed because being told to fuck off by an eight year is a daily if not hourly occurrence.

In England Reception is only optional in theory - I never came across a child who missed Reception. So children do get an extra year of schooling in England.

I'm not sure how you raise the attainment and break the cycle either; it can be done, clearly - but it's hard.

I think even with a fairly disinterested parent, going to a school in a more MC area helped for me. The expectations were different, both from the kids and the teachers. The kids were generally expected to learn by teachers and their parents and so they largely behaved appropriately. Being smart or studious wasn't something that was mocked except by small groups, where as at my primary (and at the local high school) being a swot was a cause for extensive bullying. So I think that helps. That said, an unmotivated family member followed me there a few years later and did very very poorly - the school didn't know how to handle it at all.

I did run in to a few teachers at high school who expected less of me just because of where I was from but mostly they didn't, and I think that had an impact. I wonder if there is a need to ensure that teachers actually don't stay at schools with low attainment for too long - I think it must be very easy to become jaded. The school I should have gone to - 9% got 3+ highers and only 1% got 5. That's horrific.

I'm not sure selective would help; assuming a system like the 11+ it would probably just embed the issues further as the interested parents would put their kids forward for it and put extra time in to tutoring and the others wouldn't bother.

behaviour problems not being dealt with properly doesn't help those kids either - a family member was sent to the PRU (pupil referral unit) after years of awful behaviour (regularly punching other kids) and we were all aghast that he was out of mainstream schooling but he was back within 2 years and a changed boy, i don't know what they did but it was like a miracle - it's too early to say whether it'll improve his outcome, but it certainly hasn't worsened it.

I'm sure it has helped all the other children in his class too.

I agree with all the comments being made re behaviour problems and SEN not being properly dealt. There is a huge negative impact on the teachers, the pupils with the issues and all the other pupils.

There is also a more general issue with parental involvement which I see from my 5 year old to my 16 year old. The lack of clear objective academic expectations and measurement against them means that even interested parents are unclear about how to support their DC, the teachers and the school. This tends to shift their focus to how their DC feel about school and that inevitably tends to set up situations where parents side with their DC over the school. This is the opposite of my school days.

@how, as have said this many times here, I have NO idea what the objective and the expectations might be. None whatsoever!

Prettybird - everyone in England has 7 years of primary - I have never met anyone who didn't start school in reception. There might be rare exceptions. I myself started at 4 in reception and that was viewed as starting school. Also most kids (all the ones I've ever met did 7 years of senior school before they could go to uni. Not making any comparisons on the quality of education just pointing out your misconception.

lack of clear objective academic expectations and measurement against them means that even interested parents are unclear about how to support their DC

yes, this exactly sums up how I feel about DD's school experience.

Nail on head here too. I don't know what I should be supporting her to do

I agree that the vast majority of 4 year olds in England do Reception - but not all as it is not compulsory until the term after a child is 5.

Otherwise, why would there be a gazillion posts on MN with parents angsting over whether their kids are ready for school and if they defer, whether their kids should go straight into Y1? Also some schools/LAs still do staggered (January/April) intakes or allow part time attendance in Reception.

Also I don't know of many Scottish rising 5s who aren't in nursery/preschool. My kids certainly all went 3 hours a day in that last year before school, so although it's not as "full time" as a school place where you're in the classroom 4.75 hours a day, it's still the start of formal education.

Making comparisons is pretty pointless because of the different cut-offs. My daughter who is an August birthday would have started in England at 4 years and 1 week, in Scotland she started a week before she was 5. All very well too saying it's not compulsory but it really is in a practical sense - before we moved we looked into the implications of not sending our daughter for Reception and we were told that giving up a Reception place would mean that applying for Y1 entry you'd have to take what was available. So you're left with places in schools nobody wants. So by default you send them to Reception if you're bothered about getting them into a decent school.

Nursery is very different from school - my DCs went to relatively "academic" nurseries, all day, but being in reception is much more tiring, and involves more real work.
My dd will certainly have one less year at school than if she were in the English system. Being at a not very challenging Scottish school, and losing a year, will presumably mean that she is less academically advanced and less mature than many of her peers at uni. I will encourage her to take a year out before uni.
Anyway, I suppose what matters is whether the children receive a well-rounded and thorough education, which challenges each of them without unduly stressing them, coming out with lots of useful knowledge, skills and personal attributes (eg work ethic) at the end of it.
When I told our headmaster that I had hoped that at secondary level dd would be stretched, and would not find herself spending lots of her time helping other children with their classwork, as had already happened to her at primary (this was in the context of my concern about no ability setting), he commented that this would provide useful teaching experience for her . Soft skills are important, apparently. So children who are frustrated at school are learning teaching, patience, anger management, etc. It's all good.

@whist, so whichever way you look at it and disregarding your circumstances, you can't lose out...

whistlr I don't understand why you still think under the Scottish system your DD will be less well qualified or less mature. Because she started formal education a year later she will finish it at exactly the same age and time. According to UCAS she is likely to be considerably better qualified for Uni.

Ime no amount of challenge is sufficient for a precociously bright child and there is evidence to suggest that accelerated academic development often comes at the expense of other areas. There really are DC who are perfectly capable of fulfilling all the expectations of a good education with top results with very little effort and minimal HW. As a parent I don't see the value of reams of unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive "busy" work for such DC - it just takes away their ability and time to be intelligent / creative / happy on their own terms.

If you had a DC who was struggling with academic work through lack of school support then I would understand your concerns better.

howabout: Why are you saying that I don't understand when my dd will finish her schooling in Scotland, and when she would have finished it if she had stayed in England?
She will finish school a full year earlier in Scotland. She started secondary school here at age 11. In England she would have started secondary school at the same time. Scottish schools only have one year in the 6th form, so she will leave school when she is 17. In England she would have the second year in the 6th form, and leave school a full year later, aged 18. I hope that's clear.

She went to very average English primary school. Then moved into the first year of secondary in Scotland. She finds a big difference in the academic level of the children in the Scottish school, which is in a wealthy area and has a high reputation within Scotland. And the children are on average older than they had been in her English primary class. She also finds that there is a lack of interest in schoolwork.
We remain in touch with some of her friends in England. My dd has spent a year in Scotland feeling bored and frustrated, no ability setting of any kind, finding things easy and slow, and apparently in maths almost everything is very easy stuff she had already done at primary in England. She finishes school quite early, and almost never has any homework. She has 6 hours of free time on her hands after school. She does loads of clubs, activities, and things at home, but she feels frustrated because she feels that the real substance of the day, the challenge of learning at and for school, is missing. It is very different for (as it happens bright) friends in England - they are both streamed and ability set, taught in a way that suits bright kids, get masses of challenge at school, lots of academic clubs are available (none at all at our school), a fair bit of challenging homework. They are surging ahead, feel constantly challenged, and are loving it.
I cannot believe that, when she leaves school in Scotland one year before her friends in England leave school, she is going to be at the same level as them. If she left at the same time as them, she would not be at the same level either. Not by a very long way, based on what we have experienced so far. She will also less choice in the subjects that she can study.
The Scottish system may work better for those who are not academic - I can't comment on that. I certainly regret moving my dd here. I am doing what I can to redress the balance in various ways, but there is a limit to what I can do.

whistlr is your DD an Autumn birthday? My Scottish DD2 is a November birthday and started P1 / Y1 aged 4.5. If she were in England she would have started YR aged 4.5. You are correct in her case, that if she were in England she would leave school aged 18.5 rather than 17.5. OTOH her English cousin, of the same age, has a summer birthday. He will leave school just after his 18th birthday.

My DD3 and her English cousin of almost exactly a year younger are both summer birthdays. She started P1 the same time he started YR. She will leave school a year earlier than him and they will both be 18 when they leave school.

My DD1 is a Spring birthday and narrowly missed the Scottish cut off. She will be 18.5 when she leaves school. My neighbour's son is 6 weeks older and a year ahead of her at school. He will leave aged 17.5. We have 2 English friends with DC the same age as her. One is a couple of months older and one is a couple of months younger. They will all leave school at the same time.

Like pretty I have Highers, degrees and professional qualifications coming out my ears - I even worked in the City for a decade. I have academic DC. I have dozens of close relatives' and friends' with DC in English Grammars, Faith schools, Private schools, Academies and non-selective schools (in Grammar and non-Grammar areas) all over the North, Middle and South of England. We regularly mix and share notes. I do not share your concerns for my DC.

I do wonder if selection and early pressure and intervention may help or hinder less academic DC but all of Blair / Gove's efforts so far appear to have had no impact in England's PISA performance - Scotland is now no worse (having been previously better, but within the statistical margin of error - see article I posted a while back).