Possible move to Scotland from England but should we be concerned about education?

[Wouldliketomove]

Hello Everyone,

As the title says, DH and I are carefully researching a possible move to Scotland for our family (two toddlers currently) but I am constantly reading worrying things about education in Scotland. I'm aware there are also soon to be significant changes, which complicates things further and introduces more unknowns.

Can anyone with experience either as teachers or parents offer a perspective on education in Scotland at the moment please or any further insight into what is to come? I have tried to read what is widely available.

Thanks very much in advance

Not sure how N5 and H are viewed as being "rote learning" - I mean there's always an element of needing to learn stuff, it's an exam! But you'd struggle to rote learn a load of essays. I'm don't know as much about science subjects.

Rote learning probably isn't quite the right term, but there was a lot of learning what words to use to answer certain questions. When I did exams, I remember having free rein to write countless long essays, using whatever style and content I wanted.

They are taking many more subjects to Higher and Advanced Higher than those taking A Level.

My children crashed Highers too, and also were able to take a wide range of Highers in the first place including sciences and creative subjects.

My academic friend would say that GSCE Maths is a low level qualification and does not result in students being numerically literate.

What do you mean by taking a wide range of Highers in the first place? In S5 pupils only take up to 5 Highers. How can you describe 5 Highers as "a wide range"? You talk about scienceS and creative subjectS. So I assume your DCs did either English or maths, 2 sciences and 2 creative subjects (eg drama or art)? In my view, but you may disagree, taking both maths and English at Higher level is pretty important. And if your DCs took 2 sciences and 2 creative subjects, plus maths or English, there was no room for any humanities (history or geography) or for even one language.

Your DCs will have taken those 5 exams at age 16. At age 16 in England they could have taken 12 GCSEs. English language, English literature, maths, physics, biology and chemistry are compulsory (although the sciences can be done as a combined subject equalling 2 GCSEs). So that's 6 GCSEs. Let's add on: history, geography, French, psychology, design and technology, drama. That's what I'd call a wide range of subjects, leaving the child genuinely able to choose between going towards either sciences, the humanities or arts and languages at A'level and then degree level.

You say that your DCs widened their in your view already wide range of Highers by crashing more Highers in S6. That's fine, but it does mean that they didn't stretch themselves by talking 3 subjects to the next level at Advanced Higher, which I think is a wasted opportunity. The young people I knew who studied Advanced Highers found that to be the best part of their time at secondary school, from an academic perspective.

What context is this in? For a maths degree or a physics degree, students would have A'level maths. Is she talking about another degree where maths is important, but that you can do without either A'level maths or Further maths (which is more advanced than GCSE maths but is often done alongside it)? And do those degrees require Higher maths from Scottish students? I have heard that Higher maths is relatively difficult. Whereas for instance Higher music is easier than GCSE music.

The Scottish students are more likely to have Higher maths which is helpful as some aspects of this subject area are scientific. I am not going to say what the subject is as my friend would be instantly identifiable. She fonds that many of her very clever students from south of the border can’t do numbers at all.

Hey this isn’t a court of law, I don’t have to defend myself. My kids did both crash Highers and AHs. They are clever and creative and both got a good well rounded education. Five highers in fifth year plus more in sixth year covers a wider range of subjects than 3 A levels in sixth form. GCSEs do not the same academic value as Highers.

What does it mean to crash a higher?

It means to sit the higher without having done the Nat5 in the subject. For example my dd did 6 Nat5s in S4 then in S5 did 4 of those at Higher and also Higher Human Biology - she hadn't done biology after S3 and utter wasn't one of her Nat5s
Edited for typo

I disagree with you about GCSEs being of less academic value than Highers. Some (possibly many) are more advanced academically than Highers are, if you take a look at what's involved. I know someone who did GCSE and A'level music and looked at a Higher music paper, and said that it was much easier than the GCSE. And if you look at the syllabuses and the exam time, GCSEs often require more than Highers.

I don't have a high opinion of Highers, and I think that leaving school having done Highers as your top qualification is not great for more academic young people, even if they've done quite a lot of them. Crash Highers also presumably cover a lower level of the subject than a Higher that builds on a Nat 5 syllabus, and what someone said upthread about a science Higher not building on the Nat 5 is concerning. Children in other countries are learning at a much higher level.

I've known children in both Scottish and English systems. A'levels are far tougher and involve far more teaching and student work than Advanced Highers. My impression is that GCSESs are often more advanced and require more of pupils than Highers do, though I think it varies from subject to subject.

Someone upthread did a general comparison of the 2 systems. Here it is:

"There is a huge difference between the two systems in terms of content examined.
As an example if you look at Maths:-
GCSE
2 years learning
3 papers 1hr 30 mins each
Total 4 hrs 30
Scottish National 5
1 year learning
2 papers 1hr and 1hr 30
Total 2 hrs 30
A Level
2 years learning
3 papers 2hrs each
Total 6 hrs
Scottish Higher
1 year learning
2 papers 1hr 30 and 1 hrs 45
Total 3hrs 15
Scottish Advanced Higher
1 year learning
2 papers - 1 hr and 2hrs 30
Total 3hrs 30
At GCSE an average student will sit 30-35 hours of exams whilst a Scottish Nat 5 student will sit 13-15 hours. Putting aside the question as to whether exams are the correct way to assess 16 year olds the English system is more academically challenging, I'm not sure you can argue otherwise.
My DC did a Higher with minimal teaching time and minimal revision (it did have a practical element in addition to the written paper) they scored an A. Their A Levels were completely different. Months of work and revision, came out with Bs.
I don't think people realise the difference. If a school offers both then the Scottish qualifications will be recommended to those who are not as academically strong."

I think an issue in this debate is that if you're only familiar with one education system, you tend to assume that your child is getting a decent education. If they get As in the exams, then you assume they're getting a great education and are delighted. Especially when that's the message you're getting from the teachers. But those results are pretty meaningless if you don't do a comparison with other education systems. It would be fantastic to have some people on here from other countries in Europe and further afield.
It's not an easy comparison of course. For instance, in China and Korea older children spend twice, and sometimes more than twice as many hours at school as children here do. (that's not something I'd be in favour of, though I admire their work ethic).

So you're comparing your memory of sitting 3 A levels with your children's experience of sitting 5 Highers? I can tell you my memory of sitting Highers and SYS is that the Scottish system expected greater breadth and independent learning than my children's experience of the rote learning of GCSEs A levels. So where does that leave us? Probably just with a 'good old days' statement on either side.

Neither system is perfect but the breadth and opportunities to change direction in the Scottish system is invaluable. I have real issues with the non-comprehensive post 16 education in England. It's virtually impossible to sit GCSEs between 16 and 19 and since the removal of the AS levels if you pick the wrong A level and struggle you are completely screwed. And university offers no flexibility either. I'm lucky, I was academic, DH was academic (both educated to first degree level in Scotland but with masters and PhDs in England), we have academic kids (who have done very well in the English school system). But I've seen more (good, academically inclined) parents see their child crash and burn in England's schools than in Scotland's. The English system only works for some children and that is a much bigger problem than how many facts the brightest kids know at 18.

Again, Nat5=GCSE, Higher>AS level and AH >A level. You keep comparing Highers to GCSEs and that is not the correct comparison and you repeating it does not make it true.

Crash Highers doesn't mean something different to other Highers - it's the students who are crashing. So you could have a class of Higher Geography say where most students took it for Nat 5, but a few didn't and therefore have to study harder to access the course.

I disagree with you @FruAashild . That doesn't make you right. There's no way a Nat 5 is equivalent to a GCSE. And there's no way an Advanced Higher is equivalent to an A'level.

How can you imagine that 3 Advanced Highers, done over one short academic year on a very part-time basis (my DC did 3 Advanced Highers and had little teaching and a lot of free time, and the exams were early), are equivalent to 3 A'levels done over 2 full academic years, with far more teaching time and far more work and revision by the pupils? And the Advanced Higher exams are half the length.

If so, that gives you an indication of how easy Nat 5 Geography is, doesn't it? Either that, or they don't build on the knowledge gained at Nat 5 level, which would be a shame.
But I remember that at our school a lot of subjects required you to have done the Nat 5 if you wanted to do the Higher.

Generally speaking it is required, yes, and students will find it easier if they've done the National 5. But they can ask to take on a subject they haven't studied before if they're willing to put the extra work in and capable. Some subjects like Psychology or Politics can only be studied at Higher level.

According to UCAS Scottish Highers are about 2/3 of the value of an A Level and advanced Highers are of higher value than an A level.

Advanced higher history for example has a three hour exam and a 4000 word dissertation.
After doing Higher and AH in a subject you'd definitely know as much as an A-level.

And the A'level history I've just looked up has 2 exams, lasting 2.5 hours each, plus a "historical investigation" which has to be between 3,500 and 4,500 words. As you say, people doing Advanced Higher history for one year will already have done a one year Higher history course. English pupils do a two year GCSE history course and then a 2 year A'level history course.

If you're involved with history in Scottish schools, you might find this A'level history curriculum interesting:

A-level History 7042 | Specification | Specification At A Glance | AQA

They seriously need to take a closer look. It's interesting that Oxbridge require an upper level A in an Advanced Higher - they clearly don't see Advanced Highers as being superior to A'levels.

Dd and her cousin are the same age. Dd did gcse then a levels in maths bio and chem. DN did the same plus english.and geography at higher and advanced higjer in maths and chem. They did compare notes and sylubus. Dd GCSE concepts were Higher level
in scotland and her yr 1 a level work comparable to the advanced higher but the ciriculum was much smaller. Both now 2nd year uni in england Dd no issues DN had to resit 2 exams and struggled with the jump. Both doing biomed.......DN does.feel.he wasnt taught tonthe same level as his english course mates at school

And Scottish pupils will have completed Nat5 History.

I think the esteem Scottish qualifications are held in differs wildly subject to subject. English and Modern Studies are widely regarded as truly terrible whereas AH physics is very similar to 1st year physics in a Scottish uni.