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.

Then why state she is a carer ‘even though’ her brother attends mainstream and is doing Nat 5s if you recognise attending mainstream and doing Nat 5s is irrelevant to the need for a carer? And boasting about your DD gaming the system is distasteful to those who do carry out caring roles. Two wrongs do not make a right.

you're just desperate to argue with everyone aren't you?

We live in an SIMD10 (least deprived) area but my DCs get the highest level of widening access due to the school they attend (I think it’s described as a “flag plus” school). We didn’t game the system, it’s our catchment school but most people sent their kids out of catchment and it was just expected at the primary school that an out of catchment placement would be possible. Then when we applied virtually the whole year was rejected as the out of catchment school was full. So with much trepidation the majority sent their kids to the catchment low performance widening access school and to my knowledge, most people have found it’s actually fine. My DCs have parents, grandparents and a great grandparent who went to university so they were absolutely not in the position where the notion of access to university was an alien concept but we didn’t seek out the widening access position, if anything we were trying to avoid to by applying to the other non-“widening access” school.

@motheronthedancefloor @SkiingonKaraSea you’ve both made really interesting points on this thread and personally I’ve found your input fascinating.

Perhaps 'gaming the system' was the wrong expression, but I maintain its easier for people to meet the criteria than I had originally thought.
Similar to @Bigcheeserolling -we are SIMD 9 decile but DD goes to what Strathclyde university calls a 'target school', so even without the carer status she would have been contextual for that university at least.
At Glasgow, those who fall under widening access and can meet the minimum grades by end S6 are guaranteed an offer. Its actually guaranteed, which makes little sense to me when so many people probably fall in that category.
Its a bloody stupid system, even if it benefits DD.

Our High School only timetabled six Nat 5s (two DCs leaving 2019 and 2023).

There were workarounds for able students.

Gifted mathematicians could take both maths and applications of maths in the same timetabled five period slot. Highers could be taken a year early.

One of my DCs ended up with only five Nat 5s but seven highers by the end of S5 due to the school's flexibility.

My DCs High School (South Lan) was max of 6 Nat 5 in S4 in 2019-20. It suited my DC2 as they didn't narrow subjects until S4. Has switched to 8 Nat 5s now due to parental pressure. Not convinced more subjects examined necessarily better - my one with the 6 Nat 5 does a job in a subject that he has no school qualification in - one terms worth of modules at uni. He lives/works in England but to my knowledge they don't think he's thick as he hasn't got 13 GCSEs.

My youngest looking for graduate jobs atm and so far all recruitment has been blinded to school and uni qualifications (and even work experience). Just need to pass the specific tests and assessment centre and get a 2.1 or above to secure job. .

For me no rush on when you get your passes as long as you have what you need in time for your chosen next stage. Good that numbers getting pass in Nat 5 Maths S4-S6 gone up.

My kids school do 9 subjects in S3, and drop 2 of those at the start of S4 to sit Nat 5s in. So they are doing 7. Some of the able students sit Apps in addition to Maths, but there is no separate class for this. Some of the less able students just do the Apps.

The number of subjects is no different to when I sat O Grades as one of the last cohorts to do so, I did 8, including Maths and Arithmetic.

My kids are 15 and 11, and in a supposedly good catchment area. Every single interaction I've ever had with their primary or secondary schools has been underwhelming.

The lack of ambition for anything other than complete mediocrity is palpable. Discipline in the primary school is hilariously bad (and this is an affluent catchment), with disruptive kids routinely rewarded by being removed from boring lessons to bake cookies (I'm no psychologist, but this doesn't seem conducive to improving behaviour over the long term).

Secondary school is mediocrity on stilts, infused with a cringe-worthy level of wokery. My daughter's history curriculum for Nat5s essentially consists of slavery, civil rights movement, colonialism and the impact of the British Empire.

Should have gone private, but then they'd have been excluded from uni due to privilege or some such shite. Probably still will be thanks to the catchment penalty.

What a country.

They should do uni applications blinded for postcode and school like job applications, it’s ridiculous positive discrimination. Next people will be deliberately moving to deprived areas to get into uni.

@Dissimilitude if you think the school curriculum is "wokery" you'll be very glad that your children "won't be going to university" as it's generally a hotbed of ideas such as anti discrimination . You will probably find it's even tricky getting a job due to being racists that support slavery and are keen on denying civil rights.
Probably going private actually involves learning about such things too.
I'd suggest home education for maximum ignorance.

Yes, because expecting some balance in the curriculum equates to "being racist and supporting slavery".

Imbecile.

@Dissimilitude can you explain what "balances" learning about slavery and civil rights? What's the opposing view that would add balance? Happy to be a woke imbecile who needs this explained.

@Dissimilitude

Secondary school is mediocrity on stilts, infused with a cringe-worthy level of wokery. My daughter's history curriculum for Nat5s essentially consists of slavery, civil rights movement, colonialism and the impact of the British Empire.

This is a N5 course. It will of necessity be a more in depth study of particular historical themes to allow students to develop critical thinking and analysis skills. At this age it's preparation for further historical study, limited by time available in class. If you or your children find this challenging and would prefer history to be a series of "facts" then neither of you are ready for the academic discipline of university that's heading your way in a couple of years.

Your reply is ridiculous and patronising. Either you are just trolling or this is where dumbing down of education has got us.

I agree having moved from elsewhere there doesn’t seem much academic ambition or rigor in the Scottish curriculum.

Positive discrimination should not be so extreme.

I apparently attended a target school, but having now worked through life my own kids should be discriminated against for being in a non target school.

social engineering gone mad. The snp operate on nat5 social understanding level.

most of their policies sound like they were thought up and written by a undergraduate student

If you only learn about the Atlantic slave trade, European colonialism /British empire and civil rights in the USA - though they are important subjects and I’m not saying you shouldn’t learn about them at all - you effectively continue to centre the west and a Eurocentric worldview in the interests of doing penance and “eliminating colonialism from the curriculum” while sidelining the rest of the world.

People who have a problem with wokery are not just right-wing fascists who think colonialism and slavery are great, and that kneejerk reaction from woke types when criticised is very telling. They can’t even understand that wokery could be criticised from a reasonable, humane, or leftist or centrist viewpoint.

For me a major problem with wokification of curriculums etc is that it’s dishonest and self-serving. It’s not about actually changing power balances or promoting a fairer, more cosmopolitan view of the world. It’s about scrabbling to jump on a bandwagon that lets you off the hook for being white, European, western, or privileged in whatever way by showing how much you care about declaring how bad colonial is/was etc. It still centres the colonisers and their arenas. It’s just box ticking and that box-ticking is worse than useless as it leaves those who do it free to continue with the same old power imbalances and prejudices.

At our primary school we had all the social justice right-think, no one must ever be excluded or made to feel bad, we’re all one big happy family, racism is evil all the time. Then they put on a Christmas play called “Christmas around the world” that showed a whole bunch of racial stereotypes of people around the world celebrating Christmas - including people who don’t/wouldn’t - and including racial stereotypes of some of the kids in the actual school.

Because no one thought for a second to actually apply the concept of being open to differences and respectful and not centring western concepts at all. They’d ticked the boxes and carried on without a second thought, smug in the knowledge that everything was lovely and welcoming and inclusive.

@Nogg I'm not trolling @Dissimilitude.
Her comment about balancing "wokery" linked to slavery and civ rights is concerning and frankly racist.

I am quite happy to criticise aspects of education although not the ridiculous N4 made up stories in the media which show how little many understand about this system.

"Rigour" in education has so many connotations and has led to five year olds being forced to learn " fronted adverbials". Depressingly, many parents have accepted this as perfectly fine when those same children are unable to play and socialise with each other. Such competitive nonsense as "my children are behind". Behind whom? Am I behind as an adult? Have I missed a crucial part of life?

The CfE was designed by specialists, academics and teachers. It's had much international praise over the years and is now under review. It will likely include slightly more focus on required knowledge but will still be a skills led curriculum. The content will continue to be "woke" because huge areas of research and learning have moved on since the 1970s and we are now as a society aware that things we have accepted as facts are actually based on the suffering of others.
And you know,very very many people in the world are not white and will not appreciate any kind of "balance" given to colonialism.

@gingerlybread no one is scared when people like you shout "racist" any more. It's not 2016.

@WhatterySquash

"For me a major problem with wokification of curriculums etc is that it’s dishonest and self-serving. It’s not about actually changing power balances or promoting a fairer, more cosmopolitan view of the world. It’s about scrabbling to jump on a bandwagon that lets you off the hook for being white, European, western, or privileged in whatever way by showing how much you care about declaring how bad colonial is/was etc. It still centres the colonisers and their arenas. It’s just box ticking and that box-ticking is worse than useless as it leaves those who do it free to continue with the same old power imbalances and prejudices. "

As I've said previously the N5 coursework has been taken out of context and will be looking at historical themes. These are 15 and 16 year olds.

What you are saying is coming from a place of utter privilege. Of course as an adult you can dismiss "wokification" but these kids are entirely new to a lot of these concepts. They are exposed to far right propaganda every day of their lives on social media. This learning is new to them.
Great if you personally feel we can move on to a higher plane of equality that can glibly use the word " wokification". For the rest of society perhaps just learning to look up at the fine buildings in Scottish cities with street names commemorating slavers is a baby step in the right direction.

I've reported this comment. Who are "people like me"???
What balances the topic of slavery?
Is there a point of view which says "slavery was a good thing" ???

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

We are going back into TIMSS next time, apparently. But as England has done so well this might be a huge embarrassment.

Oh for goodness sake.

When I ask for balance in the curriculum, I'm (very very obviously) not asking for a "pro slavery" position to be taught alongside slavery. You really thought that?

I'm asking for the curriculum to feature some other content aside from the favoured progressive touchstones - e.g. Scottish history, early british modern history etc.

"People like you" is report-able, but explicitly calling someone racist is fine. Ok.

@Dissimilitude you are being racist. You can't somehow add balance to these topics. Do you imagine that they are mere opinions taught as facts?
Professional teachers will actually mention that people in Scotland at that time were enthusiastic slavers and use source materials. It's a very engaging topic for teenagers as it's a clear historical wrong and shows changes in attitude.
School has charge of children for 13 formative years of their lives and teachers take this responsibility seriously, so much so that there are whole modules on education vs indoctrination in ITE.
Learning that the holocaust, slavery and colonialism were/ are bad things is hardly "wokery". Wanting some more balance for this is actually racism.

I don’t mind the “wokery” in the history curriculum, the Atlantic skavr trade was a key part of the story of Glasgow at least. I do mind the pushing of the Scotland is very different narrative - experience of Scottish soldiers during WW1 rather than the conflict as a whole.

and don’t get me started on the pushing of “Scots” as a language except in the context of Burns.

You’re not interpreting me correctly at all. I don’t want them to change how these topics are taught. I’m not asking for these topics to be balanced in the way you think I am.

I am asking for the curriculum to feature a different mix of topics - my daughter’s school has only taught the ones above for Nat5.

Again with the “R” word just cast around. Again. No one is scared. You’re not impressing anyone.