WT Actual F has happened to Scottish education under the SNP???

[YellowPixie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2vk9gm4e0o

Analysis has been done into the pass rates of SQA exams, looking at the total cohort of S4 pupils and Nat 5s, rather than just the ones entered in the exams.

Only 40% of S4 kids passed Nat 5 maths. 25% have a pass in biology which they say is the most popular science. What a fucking shambles - no wonder they want to scrap Nat 5s, they can then pretend that everyone's a winner and give all S4s an "achievement certificate" irrespective of whether or not they would know a fraction if it came up and slapped them.

It’s the same here if I’m honest. She knows she needs to write down 3 things for a 3 mark question but she can’t tell me really what the 3 things she’s learned mean in context.

I have a STEM background and while she’s learning ‘the material’, she’s really just being prepped for an exam.

Class work and homework focus on past paper questions and how to answer them. That’s what is presented before any material on the subject.

This is exactly what's happening at my sons school. Average mark in most subjects is at least a pass. In maths it's around 30% with many getting less than 10%.

Someone up thread suggested it was inclusive this way. I have a child with ASN and it is anything but. She could tell you all about the relevant history period and the context for various events. What she cannot do is remember the required words and structure for each question when even synonyms are marked as incorrect.

I was horrified when I saw my older DC rote-learning a passage of French to regurgitate in exams, and the same for other subjects too. And yet when the Scot Gov did their ‘review of qualifications’ they seemed to ignore the actual qualifications and exams completely and just talk of dropping some and creating a sort of official CV full of activities wealthier children are more likely to be able to do.

I have a child (well a young adult really) with ASN too - dyspraxia and ADD for certain and probaby autistic too - and he really struggled with the exam technique. He knew the material inside out and really understood it, but found the technique of only telling them in the prescribed format very difficult.

I remember DS's Nat 5 history teaching telling me DS knew the material but wasn't answering the question properly. Turned out he was answering it but not using the exact phrase so the question would say give three points about the topic and the correct answer was to say point 1 is and then point 2 is etc. the actual answer didn't matter just phrasing it exactly as noted

Pointless

Maybe learning exam technique is the way to pass exams and get on to courses, apprenticeships and jobs. It seems to be the way to be successful at interview too. The lack of content is not due to the courses at the end of the day- it's a cynical culture of teaching to the test which is encouraged by league tables, Local Authority competition etc.
Rearranging the SQA is not going to change this because it's a culture that teachers have bought in to. It's really nothing to do with the government- if you read documents going back to 5-14 days they are all eminently sensible. Scottish teaching needs to be overhauled completely- it's full of a pernicious leadership agenda that promotes people who can talk the talk with little experience. Little wonder this feeds down into schooling where ambition and an ability to play the system is still valued over deep learning.

Yes another parent here who’s appalled by this. My older DC is very academic and when he was going through the high school system he explained all this to me. I was so shocked - he explained that you could fail an exam despite knowing everything. If you didn’t regurgitate the required terms. Because he understood the system, although he thought it was stupid, he was able to jump through the right hoops and do well.

My younger DC struggles much more with school stuff, has SEN and will not be able to rote-learn a nonsense system for the sake of it. It’s a nightmare. None of the education and exam system she’s going through will actually test what she knows, her actual skills or her intelligence. Just her ability to record and repeat particular phrases and terms which she is not good at all - and while there is SEN support, there is no provision for the idea that this whole concept is going to confuse and exclude some kids.

I’ve regularly been appalled by all sorts of ridiculous nonsense from school and teachers the whole time I’ve had kids in school, but I’d somehow assumed it would all come right eventually and the actual entire system must be functional - but in the last few years I’ve realised that’s not true. The Scottish government have designed a system that they presumably thought would make it easier to get good results and make them look good, but based on zero understanding of actual learning, children or what will happen in the future.

DH had to stop helping older DC despite being a professional adviser in that field as he discovered the curriculum was wrong in too many places and didn’t reflect the law. But as DC needed to pass she had to learn the wrong ‘correct answer’ rather than what is actually the correct answer. This wasn’t oversimplification stuff that you come across, especially in the sciences, either.

@YellowPixie your comment on the languages is spot on. I did o'level french in 1979 and have recently gone back to french aged 61 I'm amazed how much I remember. My daughter did standard grade french and higher and cannot converse much at all.
My oral test was being shown a picture of the beach with no prior warning and talking about it. Hers was pre learnt.
One of my friends was a maths teacher and she is horrified at all the changes.

it's a cynical culture of teaching to the test which is encouraged by league tables

This is what I thought it was when older DC first approached exams but it really isn’t. The answers are SO prescribed that knowing the subject inside out will not get you any marks. You have to use the correct words to be given a mark. Even teacher friends who are markers despair at the marking scheme.

My nephew is on the Autistic spectrum, he can talk for days on space, computer programming, Dr Who, Dungeons and Dragons and cars.

He wasn’t really given a chance at school as he struggled with how he was taught anything. He just switched off and did not do well in exams at all.

Thankfully now he’s at college and has a bit more freedom to learn his way. College is encouraging him to get his degree as he’s perfectly capable. He just never fitted in with how Nat 5s are taught.

I think the BBC article highlights this perfectly on the children who are passing subjects in S4 at Nat5 level.
I hadn’t seen the figures shown in this way until now.

I agree with a lot of what is being posted but the not the idea that 40% achieving N5 maths is in itself awful - you have to compare that to the number of people who achieved credit maths in the past, not the numbers who passed Standard Grade at all! Students who get national 4 have still passed and achieved something. It does seem that the maths exam is particularly hard however.

Learning exam technique, how to organise information into an essay, argue a point, pace yourself in an exam setting, read all the instructions carefully before starting etc are all useful skills that should be taught.

That’s different from learning to succeed at the entire exam by only using particular phrases and structures to regurgitate things. Not only does that potentially fail kids who know the relevant information, it also actively wastes time on teaching kids rote learning and phrases as a priority, thereby deprioritising actual learning of information, actual understanding, and allowing kids to explore and ask questions about topics that interest them. Fuck actual learning and encouraging kids to find out more about their passions and develop an enquiring mind, or critical thinking ability. Exams have always stifled that to an extent, but this system actively works against it.

To provide a little balance (although this does not in any way diminish my hatred of the Scottish system as it is right now) - a lot of what PPs are complaining about with regards answering to the spec in exams, rote learning passages for modern languages etc. happens in other systems and exam boards too. So much of GCSEs and A levels is about answering in the way the examiner wants you to answer. It was the thing that frustrated my eldest the most. He is a gifted communicator - particularly in written form - and did A levels in English Lit, History, Politics and RS. His skill in writing was both his strongest asset and his biggest weakness as he could wax lyrical but had to control himself to write in a very formulaic way. He learned how to do it in a way that got him the top grades, while
not diminishing his flair too much, but it was very hard work for him and quite frustrating.

I will say though that to get the top grades - esp at A level - does require a lot of work - you simply don’t get kids who aren’t the most academic getting straight As, and when I hear my DC’s friends talk about what they are studying at Nat 5/H/AH and compare it to the depth and breadth my DC are expected to cover at GCSE and A level, there really is no comparison.

I would worry about DC from Scotland going to universities outside of Scotland because I just cannot see how they are up to the standard of students who have studied elsewhere in the UK and Ireland. Ireland is a good example actually - their leavers cert is broader than A levels, in the same way that if you study 5 Highers you are going broader than the more standard 3 A levels - but top grades at LC are only achieved with very, very hard work - even JC (kind of equivalent to GCSE/Nat 5) is the same, and grind schools are in common usage to get kids to the standard needed to get the top points.

My eldest was in the first cohort to go through with CfE from Ante-Pre and my goodness it was a disaster from day 1. We ended up in 3 different nurseries & primaries because of moving house and 1 secondary and they were all a disaster - the focus was purely on teaching to the ‘bottom’ and there was no desire to stretch more able kids. By the time he got to upper primary he was left on his own and then was told off for coasting by a teacher in secondary - but he was given no homework and was left to his own devices all day in school. My youngest struggled with confidence in her early years and that was taken as her not being able. I was told by her P3 teacher that “someone had to be bottom of the class” and not to worry about it. I knew she was far more capable than they could see/acknowledge. We moved to NI and she is now thriving in one of the top grammar schools in the country without a single bit of tutoring - she just needed decent teaching at a base level and higher expectations rather than being left to flounder in silence because she lacked confidence.

@WhatterySquash @YellowPixie the thing is that "the government" have NOT designed these courses- despite appearances large working groups of teachers and seconded teachers are involved in creating them and the assessments/ exams. The SQA is essentially a group of teachers. The problem is engrained in the system and change is heavily resisted. Highers have been the curse of reform - N4 was originally created to be an assessment based qualification with no requirement for external validation. Then N5 would be the equivalent of O levels/ standard grade credit and was originally to be for S5, with highers in S6 and advanced higher for those who were capable. Unfortunately this meant S4 leavers with no external qualifications. The concept of 5 highers in S5 was never dropped by schools in affluent areas and was required for university, although that's changing now, slightly.
This mess is entirely the fault of the teaching profession and I expect the Curriculum Review to produce exactly the same mess, sadly.

How you can equate the SQA and "the teaching profession" I do not know.

giberlybread thanks, I didn’t know these details. But isn’t the SQA a government, or national, body? If education in scotland is different fromEngland and seconded to Scotland to run, isn’t it the government’s responsibility- presumably they are commissioning whoever makes the decisions and designs the exam system? If it’s nothing to do with the government, who is giving that group of teachers their power? Not being arsey I’d genuinely like to know how it works!

@Skiptogetfit

You don’t think that having lots of pupils academically incapable of passing nat5 maths in S4 is an issue???

No I don't. As someone downthread has explained you would really need to have the stats for the % of those who previously passed Standard Grade at credit level to make a proper comparison before becoming outraged.
Everyone sat either credit/general or general /foundation and I'd wager a bet that those achieving a credit result by S4 would probably fairly in line with those achieving National 5.
A general level pass in standard grade maths was gained by the majority and probably more in line with National 4.
Having done Standard Grade credit/general exams myself and having had children complete National 5 Maths, I'd argue that National 5 is trickier.

@MistressIggi the SQA is run by seconded or promoted teachers and lecturers and employs all markers directly from the teaching profession. Most SQA activities involve running working groups of teachers to improve assessment. The same people who complain about it are happy to take a pay cheque for marking and also consider that as helpful for teaching and exam prep.

Of course this is down to the Scottish Government - it is the Scottish Government that sets directions/remits/specficiations for working groups, who listen or not to their recommendations, who fund groups and expect political support in exchange, prioritise carefully selected ‘lived experience panels’, who write the legislation, who are responsible for SQA, Education Scotland, who are responsible for overseeing teacher training etc.

Who would suffer if teachers didn't agree to be exam markers? Your dc.

@WhatterySquash
Education isn't " seconded to Scotland ". There's been a separate education system here since before the Union of the crowns. Scotland has its own Education Act of 1872 and specific legislation linking it to the Church of Scotland ( why we only have a legal requirement for Catholic denominational schools ). Our GTC and the EIS union are far more powerful than any English equivalent and should be considered like the BMA for doctors. Teachers employment in Scotland is completely different from that in England.

What relevance has past performance? What matter is how Scottish Students compare with others NOW.

You are misunderstanding. In the previous system, everyone sat the exam and aimed to pass at foundation, general or credit level. In nationals, the cohort are now split into students sitting national 4 or national 5. So all the ones passing national 4 could be viewed as not passing national 5, even though they were never entered for the exam.