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.

I realised that they are compulsory but brought them up view of this conversation on examined subjects. I have no desire for my children to rack up exam grades. I would like a reasonably wide range of subjects maintained through the years, gradually thinning out.

So five choices plus English and maths as EXAMINED subjects should be good enough for all kids not just yours.

I actually ended up home educating my son in s4, partly because of this. (He took international GCSEs in place of Nat5’s, and is now at college doing highers.) One of the big problems as I see it is if applying for the best universities, and especially English ones, these Scottish kids with their 6 subjects are up against English kids with 9-12 GCSEs, and that isn’t great. Especially as GCSE content is much broader / deeper than Nat5. It then carries on with highers being more comparable to AS levels than full A levels, and many schools (especially in deprived areas) having very limited access to advanced highers.

coggle I have lost count of the number of parents who complained similarly and loudly throughout my DC's education. Would that their offspring's final exam results reflected their parents' early confidence.

Agreed smile as I said in my first post I do think 7 is probably optimal. However I would find it hard to argue that they are actually necessary especially if the focus is on maintaining more breadth for longer in S3, also as outlined in my earlier post.

I wonder if there’s not a link between coggle and howabout’s points. If children aren’t encouraged to aim high and work to fulfil their potential, they can become complacent about their achievements. I see it in my DC: if the work they’re producing is deemed to be satisfactory, where’s the motivation to work harder or aim higher? Not all DC are academically motivated by nature, and without encouragement to keep pushing themselves they may not end up with the results they are potentially capable of.

Going off the OP’s point (which I completely agree with!) but there are other issues with the system: one teacher having to teach Higher and Advanced Higher pupils in the same class at the same time (one teacher told me she’d had to teach N5, Higher and Advanced Higher all in the same class); pupils having to travel to other schools for subjects; Advanced Higher pupils not getting the full teaching time for a subject, with the rest made up as ‘independent study’ hours.

And then there’s the availability of qualified teachers. Teachers need to be degree qualified but I bet the OP has come across instances where a teacher qualified in 1 modern language has had to teach another language which they barely know (because, y’know, they’re a qualified Modern Foreign Language teacher).

I agree, Wimpling. My DC has lost her enthusiasm and to some extent work ethic at school because she is bored by how slow and easy it all is. Going at the pace of the slowest pupils. At primary level she had a few years at a school that challenged her, and always came home buzzing. That's part of the reason why we're doing some home educating. She had gone from loving maths to finding it very slow and boring.
Although she's not very keen on school anymore, the teachers still praise her highly. I imagine she'll do well in the exams. Plus she'll have the benefit of what she's learning at home. She does lots of clubs too.

And if lots of parents complained to me about how I was teaching their children, I would listen to them.

I agree with howabout (there are other topics we disagree fundamentally on, but on education we tend to be of accord )

My experience of CfE has also been a positive one: ds has now been through the system (sat his AHs and crash extra Higher this summer and is now happily ensconced at Aberdeen Uni and getting good essay results) and I would say has had a better, more rounded education than I did (for all that I got 6As for my Highers in S5 ).

It's stood him in good stead for both the self-discipline of self-guided study away from home and for studying "new" subjects (Politics/International Relations, Philosophy, Economics and History) which he hadn't studied at school (although at least the crash Higher in Modern Studies helped). He'd dropped History at the end of S2, so History in particular was a big jump. But he'd been taught to think and to analyse, so he's coped.

At ds' school, iirc, Maths, English and a MFL (French, Spanish or German --they alternate years as to which is studied or Urdu) are compulsory in S3 as they start studying towards their Nat 5s (think you can drop the MFL in S4). The other 5 columns include all 3 sciences (in separate columns for those that want to do all 3), a 2nd MFL, as well as subjects like History, Geography, PE, Art, Music, Technical Drawing/Design (whatever it is called ), Home Ec/Food Technology, Computing Science....

The kids are stretched. Ds got homework from S1 - although it ramped up in S3.

So if there are problems with CfE, it is down to how the school/LA is implementing it, rather than CfE itself.

That’s the OP’s point, isn’t it - there is a lot of variation in the way education is being delivered, and children are not all being offered the same opportunities. Looking at the report the OP linked to, my old school offers a max of 5 N5s. In comparison, our local school offers up to 6 Highers in a sitting as standard. That's a postcode lottery, not equality of educational opportunity.

OP, I share your concerns but I’m not aware of any organised efforts to rethink the system. It might be worth contacting the organisation which produced the report you linked to and asking what response it got?

But then I return to why is breadth in S3 sacred?

Tbf there are no sensible rationales: it's a dog's dinner.

So prettybird my interpretation is that your school has resisted the excesses of CfE. It has not adopted what was bandied as best practice.

Imo those pupils are lucky.

I think 8 subjects plus PE and RMPS in S3 is plenty depth. At DC’s school they also do a couple of “enrichment” classes where they aren’t working towards a qualification so absolutely no pressure.

I asked DS last night how S3/S4 were structured and he said that with the exception of Philosophy, the entire Nat 5 curriculum was covered by the end of S3. S4 was spent covering various topics (some chosen by the teachers and some student led) in greater depth/going off on tangents plus exam technique. E.g. in Chemistry, one day some of the students asked their teacher what her PhD dissertation had been about so she pulled it out of a cupboard and they spent several sessions covering something completely unrelated to the Nat 5 topics .He enjoyed S4 and it helped focus which subjects he really wanted to study in S5.

Actually, the school would disagree: it would consider that it has implemented "best practice" of CfE It got good exam results for the notorious Maths and Physics exams, precisely because its pupils had been taught to apply the knowledge - even with strange/convoluted questions - rather than just learn the equations off by heart

(I have to admit, that I'd have struggled with that aspect of CfE: I worked out a while after I did my exams that the reasons I struggled with some Physics questions but was lucky in my Higher was that I couldn't do applied Maths, whereas I loved calculus and learning things by rote )

WickedGoodDoge - ds' Maths class was doing Higher work from January of S4 (if not before) as they'd already covered the Nat 5 curriculum. Ditto in S5 - they'd started elements of AH Maths in the New Year.

One boy in ds' class actually sat all his Maths exams a year ahead (so had sat his AH Maths in S5) - apparently getting the top marks each year compared to those pupils sitting it in the "correct year" and he's not even studying maths at Uni - he's doing a MFL

coggle I am not a teacher. I am just an average parent who has had to develop cloth ears every time a parent starts telling me how smart their DC is in comparison to the rest of the class, when their DC is in the same class as mine. A number of them moved schools, including to private ones, and then proceeded to spend the next 3/5 years telling my DC how rubbish the school my DC are at is. It takes a lot of push back to undo the constant undermining. No wonder teachers have trouble undoing it in the classroom.

coldtatty I don't understand your logic at all. I would far rather have my DC applying for Uni with 5 Higher results in hand than relying on A level predictions and GCSEs.

FWIW - AHs are worth more, grade for grade, than A Levels in UCAS tariff points.

So again we have a system at wickeds child's school that would be a challenge. They were NOT waiting to do Nat 4 work but got it done in S3 WHILE doing the wider range of subjects.

To be a moaner again :

It's not fair.

What authority Wicked if you don't mind me asking?

howabout - 2 points:

• sometimes kids are actually brighter/more academically able than their peers. I have 4 DC and I would only say that 1 is exceptionally bright. I would say that because that’s what every teacher who has ever taught him has said. (No exaggeration) He is a genuine all-rounder with top marks in all academic subjects. He struggles more with art/drama/music/pe. I’m sorry that that disappoints you. (My eldest DD is bright and near the top of her class but is definitely more comfortable with literacy than numeracy. She is also not exceptional. My youngest struggle with some aspects of school and while I believe they are very able, they are not near top of their class in any subjects.) I am certainly not some blinkered rose-tinted glasses kind of parent.

• regardless of the academic ability of my DC - I want them ALL to have the opportunities to be the very best they can be. Why the hell is that wrong?

I prefer my State school's approach to wicked's private alternative. If I was advising my DC on keeping options open in S4 and had 8 to pick I wouldn't have advised engineering, computing or philosophy. None of them are necessary subjects for degree level study in their related fields. Compulsory RMPS plus a humanity gives a wider foundation for philosophy and more options later. (I have a Law and Economics degree and have had to persuade several English DC that they would be far better off with English and History at A Level than either of these).

Philosophy is a crash higher option popular in S6 at our school as it works well for DC who like RMPS and already have either Higher History or Modern Studies or RMPS. It is also a lot easier with a bit of maturity. Engineering and Computing are great subjects for DC with a clear preference towards this very early on and an active dislike of English / Humanities / Arts / Languages. They are not great for adding breadth and keeping options open. A few of my DC's friends left school after S4/S5 to use the college route to specialise in Engineering / Computing / Art / Drama / Music. This has worked really well for all of them and allowed them much more time to commit.

Sometimes more choice too early is not necessarily better imho.

I felt very sorry for my friend's DD at private school when I met her after the summer. She was being persuaded to do Art off timetable to leave room for more academic choices at Nat 5. Mine covered both in the standard timetable. This is probably colouring my view as I am massively opposed to the Arts being squeezed in this way.

AHs aren't really worth much more than A levels tbh.

If you look at it in terms of UCAS points to try an level it out, then an A at Advanced Higher gets the same points as an A* at A level, a B at AH is same as an A at A level and C at A level is 32 points and an A at Higher is 33, so it's sort of mixed.

DS who has AH in the subject he's studying at University isn't really learning too much in first year which is fine as we wanted to give him the year to settle in etc. So it is roughly similar to Yr1 of the degree but I am guessing that that would be the same for someone with an A level in the subject too.

howabout I think that just comes down to differing approaches, neither one being better than the other. We’re stressing to both children that they should pick the subjects they most enjoy and then their degree options will follow. At the moment, DD’s choices look completely different with Classics, Art, Drama and Graphic Design etc. Both children eventually want to end up in the States and I suspect DS will do undergraduate here then post-grad in the US while DD will go straight to the US for her BA. My degree was in History and German and then a while later I did an MBA- ended up as a Management Consultant in Financial Services.

*lives