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.

When the CfE was first introduced it wasn’t so bad as there were plenty of experienced teachers who knew what children needed to learn and they relied on this knowledge as the CfE did not detail it. But as time has gone on those teachers have left and the new teachers are those who themselves were taught under the vague CfE.

You have expressed what I said up thread much better than I ever could.

Pushing useless shite into school hours for trips, volunteering, paying for others etc. I’m not fundraising in our spare time or impacting the sports she loves for others. She does enough volunteering and working on her coaching qualifications.

Just teach my poor child the curriculum.

England has….OFSTED etc.,

Scotland had Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education until it was folded into Education Scotland by the SNP.

@SkiingonKaraSea N5 was designed as a S5 qualification and so many kids go straight to higher. The 40% who sit it might not do higher- why do two exams? It's fair to criticise lots of the secondary system but these grounds are spurious and a media trap.

HMIE isn't part of Education Scotland anymore- since 2022.
They were merged after a HT committed suicide after a punitive inspection. Probably best not to make parallels here.

My DS’s school has widening access applied to everyone. From what I could see it meant that for courses where there would be huge competition for places, the kids from the school would be more likely to be pulled out of the hat as they had the standard offer grades ie there were numerous unconditional offers for Law at Edinburgh Uni but these pupils did all have 5As (single sitting) at Higher. As has been widely reported, in contrast local private school pupils could have 6 A band 1s but get a flat rejection.

DS is in first year of a science degree at Edinburgh Uni and doesn’t seem to be finding the course any more challenging that his English and Irish peers but that may be due to the content aligning better with the Scottish school curriculum than the other nations or something.

So it took them 11 years to realise getting education Scotland to mark itself was not a good idea.

But you are missing the point. You say it is more centralised in England because they have Ofsted whilst ignoring the fact that the Scottish Government has the same ability to control inspection regimes ie the Scottish Government has the same level of central control over inspection.

It would be good if commentators on this thread were either scottish or who have experienced the scottish education system, so that it doesn't degenerate into arguments about who is understanding correctly.

My DB lives in England and is very dismissive of my criticism of Scottish education. He’s a professor at an English university and he feels the English system under Michael Gove became too rigid with pointless additions. He doesn’t like A levels because he thinks they are too narrow with too much content at too early a stage. He’s had problems with his DCs not really knowing what they wanted to study and feels if they had a had a year of being able to take a broader range of subjects that would have been helpful. One of his DCs has been panicking and school refusing and it’s all a bit of a mess.

He’s had problems with his DCs not really knowing what they wanted to study and feels if they had a had a year of being able to take a broader range of subjects that would have been helpful.

Does he also think his son should only have taken six GCSEs?

His children only take 8 GSCEs at his school and that includes separate English language and English literature. I don’t know many schools in Scotland that do 6 Nat 5s now. I know my DCs school used to but we complained that the schools in the “posh” areas were offered at least 7 and they changed it to 8.

The whole “10 GCSE” thing isn’t one that I envy. I can’t really see that that adds a massive amount personally but am quite happy to be corrected.

I do think the basic structure of 7 or 8 Nat 5s in S4, then 5 Highers or a mix of Highers and Nat 5s in S5, then applying to uni in S6 on the basis of grades already in the bag is WAY better than the system of GCSEs then picking 3 subjects only for 2 years, then applying to uni on the basis of predicted grades and a chaotic scramble in August when the A-level results come out and you've done better/worse than predicted.

I like that the kids have the cushion of S6 which gives them options, both my older two did 2 x AdvH in S6, plus another Higher and another Nat 5, plus free periods to get invovled in other stuff going on in the school, volunteering or similar.

I would definitely not support any idea of switching into a two year exam course over S5/S6 which would narrow the focus and make all uni offers conditional.

My take on it as a retired PTC...

Labour brought in the disastrous CfE. The SNP ran with it because of sunk costs.

Teachers were supposedly consulted - but our protestations were ignored. I actually wrote to my MSP. She passed my complaints to Mike Russell. He very helpfully wrote back to me to say that teachers had been consulted.

The coursework in Nat 5 and Higher has led to a great deal of cheating and contributes to the mindset where many pupils don't expect to work for their qualifications.

On top of all that, discipline has gone to hell: by the time I retired, my school no longer allowed staff to issue punishment exercises and the LA would only allow short-term exclusions for the most heinous offences.

I'll not reiterate my personal tale of woe here, but teaching staff and pupils are often facing horrendous behaviour these days.

We had one pupil who turned up for a prelim clearly under the influence of something - vodka, according to the other kids. The parent threatened to sue the school for suggesting that their little darling's behaviour was unacceptable. In the end, we provided separate accommodation for the actual SQA exam.

Shame for the kids whose prelim grades were affected by the drunken kid who yelled and clattered in the exam hall. I wish to God that the other parents had sued.

To correct my comment about, my DCs school increased the number of Nat 5s from 6 to 7 (not 8 as I said). I was happy enough with this as it meant that DC could do three sciences, a language and a social science (in addition to maths and English). If they had more artistic leanings that being able to take Art/Music/Dance as well might have been better but this range was ok in our case.

I agree 8 Nat 5s is much better but it means the school no longer follows the full CfE which involves S1 to S3 being a ‘board general education’.

I disagree about Highers being better than A levels though. They are too short and too quick and you have the ridiculous situation of having exams so early then starting Highers, having a six week break during which you find out how you did in your Nat 5s. At which point you might want to change subjects but will be on the back foot having missed a month of study (which you forget a chunk of by having a long summer break). Two years of study, starting in the autumn and finishing much closes to the summer, gives you a much better period of time to get to know your subject. Though I agree having to apply to uni on predicted grades is not good (though perhaps not as bad as having to start a subject without your grades at all as many do for Highers).

DS1 had no coursework for S4 and S5 other than an English essay as most was scrapped due to Covid. DS2 has it but I don’t think it’s the same as it was pre-Covid as as a previous poster said above, it was almost an exam and seemed to favour those to could memorised and regurgitate information. I felt sorry for those might be less good at memorising and would otherwise have submitted much better course work.

My eldest did four Highers in S5 and is currently sitting an AH, a Higher, a Nat5 and NPA course in S6. It's great they can mix and match different qualifications, try out new subjects etc before leaving school.

SkiingonKaraSea · Today 12:07

Vettrianofan · Today 11:33
I smell...sh*te!
Some kids can't sit Nat5 maths in S4. Many sit NAT3/Nat4 instead in S4....

That is the point that is being made - only 40% reach a standard where they can pass Nat 5 which is shockingly low. What is happening in the preceding ten years that mean so few reach that standard by S4?

@skiingonKaraSea

You're not listening. Lots of people have explained why 40% of S4s gain National 5 maths. It's not a comparator to its standard grade predecessor. Pupils will also take it in S5/S6. Ability levels probably haven't shifted much. Qualifications are different and Maths National 5 in S4 is pitched at capable maths students. Many of my contemporaries have a Maths Standatd Grade pass at a grade 3. This would be a National 4 in today's qualifications.

My DS did 5 Highers then 3 AHs - changed one AH at the start of S6 as felt it would be more complementary to the uni degree he had been solidifying his view on over the summer thwn the subject he had picked previously but it was ok as just an extension of a subject he had been studying relatively recently anyway.

What I really don’t understand is why in UCAS points terms an AH is worth as much as an A * at A level and more than an “plain” A at A level. That just seems like nonsense.

I have never compared it to Standard grades so I don’t know why you keep suggested they are not comparable. However, let’s look at a measure that is comparable over time then, and more relevantly, comparable to other countries in the market place today;

There is no equivalence between Advanced Higher and A-level, or higher and A-level. The curriculums (curricula?) are different and the different school year intakes mean that kids are different ages when they typically take them. People on MN love to say things like "reception is the same as P1" or "Nat 5 is the same as GCSE" when it's like comparing apples and oranges.

UCAS points are not really a "thing" when applying to Scottish universities, my kids who have applied were told things like "you need 5 passes at Higher of at least a B grade including English" or "typical offer is AAAAB" or similar. They won't ever say X number of UCAS points. A friend's DD went to Cambridge a few years ago, straight A grades at Higher and was given a conditional based on her Adv H grades and again this was expressed in grades rather than "you must have X UCAS points by the end of S6".

Many courses at Scottish universities will still allow for direct entry into 2nd year if the student has completed Advanced Highers in 6th year.

If UCAS wishes to reclassify the points given to any country's exam passes they are an independent body and free to do so, however much the SNP moaned they wouldn't be able to stop them.

The limitations of only 6 or 7 Nat 5s at my DC’s school was a big factor in us leaving. At the time it was 6 and contrary to a PP who said that HT’s have plenty of power, we were very clearly told by both the HT himself (not a 30-something upstart looking to get out of teaching) and the QIO at Aberdeen City Council, that the school could not allow DS, or other more able students, to take more than 6 subjects as that was a council-wide policy and the schools had to adhere to it. It has now been changed to 7, but that is still less than my DC do here at GCSE - they do either 9/9.5/10 and that includes both English Lang and Lit, which I do believe should be split as they cover very different skill sets and content and you can go into much greater depth by splitting them, particularly on the Lit side of things.

They were also much more limited in subjects at S1/2 and even more so in S3, than they are here in NI. My 3rd former is currently studying 16 subjects every single week. They did 14 in 2nd form (sciences are taught as one subject in 1st/2nd form and then split into 3 separate sciences in 3rd form) and 13 in 1st form (they only do 1 language in 1st year and then pick up a second in 2nd year). Had we stayed in Scotland they would have done 11 at any one time in S1/S2 and would have dropped to 8 in S3 and 6 in S4. Not much for a broad general education is it?

my kids who have applied were told things like "you need 5 passes at Higher of at least a B grade including English" or "typical offer is AAAAB" or similar.

Universities requesting grades at this level in England (including Oxbridge) do not use UCAS points with A levels either. UCAS points are used by lower tier universities and courses often where students apply with a broader mix of qualifications etc a BTec and an A level, or in Scotland NPA and HNC.

I’m glad there are posters on here, particularly the English ones, who feel the education system they are in is working out for them. My DB has been critical of his DCs in the English system having to do a very wide number of subjects very early in school only for it to be narrowed down significantly in terms of uni-level entry. I think his issues with the system are probably influenced by specific issues his DCs are having and no system is going to work perfectly for everyone.

I’ve always looked at grades and UCAS points so it was just a point of observation really. The Sunday Times university guide factors them into its calculation - I think it uses the number of points those who embark on the courses actually have which seems stupid as students with good higher and advanced Highers will have lots of UCAS points and this surely skews their calculation (unless that measure is given a very low weighting).