Councils restricting all children to six Nat 5 choices - any push-back from parents?

[OhBuggerandArse]

I'm trying to find out whether there is any organised resistance to the decision by a number of Scottish councils to restrict the number of Nat 5 exams to be taken to 6 per child? I'm very worried indeed about this, not just for my own kids but for the direction of education in general. It is already beginning to have a damaging effect on pupils coming through to HE - I know it is technically possible to do a crash higher in subjects not taken at Nat 5 level, but the disincentive for any
subject with a cumulative aspect (languages, music, etc) is really significant. I can't see any way of getting councils to move on this without significant outcry from parents, and would really like to find out if there are any campaigns already up and running.

For some context, an interesting briefing paper about the unintended consequences of the Nat 5 reforms: reformscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Reform-Scotland-National-4s-and-5s-Unintended-Consequences-May-2016.pdf

I agree, as a parent and secondary teacher I think it's completely unfair. Fortunately the LA where I teach and where my DDs have gone/go to school is not one that has gone for fewer choices. I would have placement requested out of district. Reluctantly as I don't think presentation for exams should be linked to parental financial or practical circumstances.

It still surprises me that there not a louder argument.

Didn't know anything about it. Dd is sitting 7.

The Reform Scotland paper lists what different local authorities were doing a couple of years ago - there may have been changes since then but at least in Highland they have been changes towards more restriction rather than less, and unfortunately out of district placement isn't feasible in rural areas. Lidlfix, can you think of any comparable situations where there has been a push-back? I guess I'm not really sure how and where it would be visible - would you have to approach individual parent councils to find out whether they had taken a view on the issue?

It’s interesting to note that changes in the number offered always seems to be downward. There should be more of an outcry over this, I’m lucky that I live in an area that offers 7. I think with the current pressure on school budgets one way to save money is to reduce the hours that pupils are at school and this will potentially result in more schools reducing the number on offer. This is especially true where nat 5s are taught in the one year time frame, as there will physically not be enough hours to teach 7/8 nat 5s.

As less pupils take art/music/languages these subjects are in danger of being retired from the senior phase as there are not the numbers to support schools keeping on teachers to cover these lessons.

Only 5 should not be an allowed pupils are essentially selecting their highers at far too early a stage in their school careers.

Ds's LA has recently in the last year changed from 6 to 7 which I am pleased with, mostly because assuming he does well in his Nat 5s it gives him more options of which subjects he wants to take to higher without having to crash.

Restricting some pupils to only 5 is a disadvantage,

Celtie - exactly, it looks as if the curriculum issues are getting conflated with budget pressures and councils are taking advantage of the C for E guidance to cut down on teaching provision. My understanding is that councils which don’t restrict the number of Nat 5s are actually beginning to deliver the exam curriculum in year 3 to get round the timetable pressures, but I don’t see any reason this should be incompatible with Curriculum for Excellence principles so long as kids are still following the broad general education during that year.

We're in East Dunbartonshire and they drop to 9 at the beginning of S3 and then 7 for S4 and Nat 5. In my opinion 6 is far too few. As English and Maths are pretty much compulsory in that everyone does them, and 99% of kids do a science, that's only three other subjects.

My Dd was the first year to sit Nat5 and her year were allowed to sit 8, as the previous SG pupils had. She passed them all, but did find the maths difficult as the content was harder than SG had been and there were only 3 periods per week of each subject.

Seven sounds like a good number.

My idea of a rounded curriculum for an academically competent child at that age would be Maths, English, at least one language but preferably two, at least two sciences but preferably three, at least two out of history, geography, RE and modern studies, at least two out of art, drama, PE and music. That's nine at the lower end, 11 plus at the top end. Admittedly I'm Very Old and came from a different system, but that seems to me to give the best chance of allowing kids to develop their interests, maintain skills across the curriculum areas, and have enough experience of different subjects to make informed choices at the next levels. Obviously there would be students for whom that would be too much - but that's surely something best worked out with students and their families, not by applying a blanket rule to everyone?

I am in an area where only 6 are studied. When DS went into S3 the teachers were not allowed to teach anything that would be part of the S4 / Nat 5 curriculum and it was strongly promoted that pupils could change their options completely between S3 and S4. Consequently there was not enough time in S4 to get through the whole curriculum without restricting the number to 6. I went to an information evening where the Council representative tried to sell the 6 subjects only concept by stating that everyone knows what they want to do when they leave school by the time they get to S4 anyway....
DD sat hers last year but although still only allowed a maximum of 6 teaching the curriculum does now begin in S3. I would have preferred 7 to give more of an element of choice in the move to selecting Higher subjects.

When DS went into S3 the teachers were not allowed to teach anything that would be part of the S4 / Nat 5 curriculum

• exactly. But some councils (esp those like Edinburgh and East Ren) are allowing them to begin curriculum teaching in year 3. It's so frustrating - it's building in a lack of parity from such an early stage.

the Council representative tried to sell the 6 subjects only concept by stating that everyone knows what they want to do when they leave school by the time they get to S4 anyway.

We were told this by a teacher on a school visit. I was properly shocked (not in a good way).

The whole system is completely unfair and it does affect outcomes. Part of the unfairness is that some schools start teaching the curriculum in S3 and some don't. Even if DC are sitting 7 or 8, if they've spent 2 years teaching to the exam curriculum and other DC only do the course in 1 year but they all sit the same exam then it's an unfair advantage. At my DSs school they were offered 7 which they fit in by stealing a month from the S3 year (moving up into s4 at the beginning of May when S4-6 go on exam leave). Given that there is no longer a separate Maths and Arithmetic exam, the 7 puts DC in the same position as I was back in early 80s when we did 8 o'grades. It's also unfair to restrict DC to 6 as they are effectively choosing their Highers too early. Crash highers are fine for some subjects depending on the pupil but it does mean that sudden changes of focus are harder to accommodate. e.g. school did not allow my DS to crash Chemistry despite doing well in other sciences and Maths but did allow/encourage (due to lack of timetable options) my other DS to crash 2 highers in S5 despite one being Music when he didn't already play an instrument and Geography which he had no interest in or aptitude for and hadn't passed any science. Needless to say that didn't go particularly well.

I sort of understand the allowing of schools to set their curriculum based on their own cohort, but it does discriminate against more able pupils.

However we seem to be in a situation where closing the attainment gap is a race to the bottom.

I'm also not sure about those statistics - our school is clearly in the green banding showing that children are doing 8, but the school's handbook says:

" In S4 our students work towards qualifications in seven subjects with presentation at National 4 or 5 level, dependent upon progress. " Nobody in DS's year is doing 8 Nat 5s. They may have the opportunity to take further Nat 5s in S5 or S6, but I'm taking the figures as meaning all at one sitting in S4.

5 is far too few. Even 6 is pushing it. And it's not as easy as a placing request - if you live in Highland you're scunnered. It's very against the whole broad general education ethos.

The Reform Scotland paper lists what different local authorities were doing a couple of years ago

I think this explains what has happened at our school, and others in East Dunbartonshire. A few years ago kids chose 8 at the start of S3 and stuck with those right through to S4 and exams. Now they drop to 9 at the end of S2 and 7 at the end of S3. So you could argue that they are getting a broader education to the end of S3 as they are doing one more than they would have done under the previous system.

As for it being broad - well I was at High School in the mid-80s and all of my peer group did 8 O Grades. OK, one of them was arithmetic but even taking that out it's exactly the same as I was doing in the 80s. So we've gone from O grade to Standard Grade to Nat 5 and the end result is pretty much the same. (Expect for the kids who are only allowed to do 5.)

I also think that this isn't such a big deal for the bright kids who will all go on to sit 4 or 5 Highers and get into Uni. Nat 5s are a stepping stone which won't matter in the long run. But for the less academic they're going to need those Nat 5 passes for college, apprenticeships and job applications. If you've only got 5, you're at a huge disadvantage.

I also think that this isn't such a big deal for the bright kids who will all go on to sit 4 or 5 Highers and get into Uni.

There's a huge opportunity cost in subject choice, though - if you're looking for exam subjects at Higher your choices are going to be hugely influenced by what you think you are going to do well in. If you haven't had the opportunity to take a subject which requires cumulative development (ie languages, especially) at Nat 5, you're much less likely to take the risk of including it in your Higher portfolio. Similarly for the creative subjects - Music obviously requires cumulative development of skills, and would you take the risk of doing Art or Drama at Higher if you hadn't had the chance to gauge how good a grade you were likely to get?

There's a knock-on impact then on qualification and uptake for degree courses which require these subjects as background. I work in a language department at a university and we are just beginning to see how problematic this is going to be for our intake. We have an absolutely imperative remit to widen participation and access, but if half the kids in the country are not being given the same opportunities to qualify for our courses we are scuppered before we start.

I agree on the languages thing. I was at secondary school of a similar size to the one my kids are at. A language was compulsory to O Grade level. School offered French, German and Spanish. Lots of us who were good at languages did two of those.

My kids' school does make French compulsory in S3, but not in S4 and for Nat 5. They don't offer German. Kids who want to do Spanish are only encouraged to do that along with French, not either/or.

Ds was fortunate in that his school allowed 8 Nat 5s, which it achieved by making their choices at the end of S2. This meant that in effect he still followed the BGE to the end of S3 (in the sense that the 8 columns of choices reflected the 8 areas of the BGE) and then didn't really change going in to S4 (although not everyone gets presented for 8 - they get presented for as many that they are capable of).

Glasgow allows individual schools to decide what they want to do.

The "justification" that everyone knows what they want to do when they leave school by the time they get to S4 anyway. is crap .
a) they have to make their choices at the latest in S3 and
b) - and more importantly - people do change their minds. Ds changed his mind completely between S5 and S6 - from Maths/Physics/Astrophysics to International Relations (Fortunately he was already crashing a Modern Studies Higher, in addition to the AHs in Physics and Maths ). And by that argument no one would ever change careers, because they had made their decision when they were 14

I for one didn't know what I wanted to be at 14. I was at a school that allowed 6 Highers and I deliberately kept my choice of Highers to half Sciences, half Arts (Maths, Physics, Chemistry, English, French, Latin). I went off to Uni to study languages with a romantic idea of being a translator/interpreter. Soon realised that that was not my strength - and thought seriously of changing to do Maths or Chemistry. As it was I changed course later and repeated a year to be be able to take the 1st year subject on to Honours and ended up with a French and Economics degree.

My career after graduation had nothing to do with my subjects

What utter rubbish about knowing what you want to do! DS did 8 Nat5s: English, Maths, Spanish, Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering Science and Computing Science. They were chosen towards the end of S2 and at the start of S4 his aim was to do the Philosophy/Physics joint degree at Oxford. By the end of the summer, he’d decided he liked Chemistry much more than Physics and he has now discovered that he absolutely loves Maths and probably wants to study that at uni and become an actuary (though he’s a bit torn between Maths and Philosophy).

He also realised that he liked Computing Science more than Engineering Science and did a last minute Higher swap.

I fully expect him to change his mind yet again before applying to uni next year.

As an aside, our LA only allows 6 Nat5s. I was part of a closed fb group for a while who were initially protesting big cuts to the curriculum of our catchment school and they also took on the restricted Nat5 options a few years later. The Head of the school at the time told one parent that if they were unhappy with the choices, they were free to go private. Not particularly helpful! The group got absolutely nowhere.

Very disappointing to hear the group didn't find a hearing at the school, Doge. But I think individual schools in most LAs probably have so little autonomy on this that the only way of getting these decisions revisited
will be a national public debate. The inequality issue seems one potential route. But I'm not sure how to create a national discussion if concerned groups can't find each other and compare experiences!

How did your son manage to do eight? Did you go private for the whole of school, or did you present him privately for the extra subjects?

We switched to private in P7. I was originally involved in the group well before that because in 2010, the Council took the decision to strip the range of Highers/AHs at our catchment school down to a very limited and basic range. They effectively wanted to make the school a vocational one with a Council paper stating at the time that it was because of the “economic demographics” of the area. This kicked off a fuss which was effectively ingored and has carried on to the Nat5 options.

I agree 7 is a good number, but for most 6 is sufficient to keep options open.

English, Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Humanity plus Art / Language / IT.

What concerns me more is too much choice and too little direction leading to DC overspecialising at Nat 5.

because of the “economic demographics” of the area

Ouch. That is a really brutal bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, and clearly against all sorts of other policies - differentiation, GIRFEC, the inclusion agenda... I bet there are similar stories from all sorts of areas. I wonder how we could begin to gather them up, and whether any journalists would be interested? That might be one way of trying to kick-start a discussion.

Individual schools in our LA do have a degree of autonomy in this. My DDs' school offers language and music as "off timetable" options to those who want them and are judged able to cope. Advanced Higher provision is much more of an issue imho. It is harder to make the case because only a few subjects for a few courses are required / preferred by Scottish Unis, given the overlap with 1st year degree level.

My DD wanted Advanced Higher provision for S6 but if topping up S4/5 breadth had been her concern she would have had 4 empty slots to fill and a plethora of options.

I think it is a mistake to look at the system at discrete intervals of S4,S5 and S6. It makes much more sense to review it in terms of the exam options over the full 3 years and even into the college sector dovetail.

I think it is a mistake to look at the system at discrete intervals of S4,S5 and S6. It makes much more sense to review it in terms of the exam options over the full 3 years

If you can keep subjects going as 'off-timetable' options that does make sense, but I wonder how many schools actually provide this opportunity? And with the best will in the world, students are going to focus their efforts on the subjects that they're being examined in, so the issue of a gap in studying a subject which requires cumulative learning is still going to have a significant effect on uptake of those subjects at Higher and Advanced Higher.

I'd be interested in hearing more about the Advanced Higher issues though - what do you think the key concerns there are?