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

But going by this thread, there must be quite a few people who bave been through the Scottish system and feel they were badly served by it or their children were.

My kids have done fine as have all the children of my friends. They have enjoyed a well rounded education with lots of art and free musical instrument tuition. Only the youngest is still in education and he actually worked really hard in S6 and did well.

The main problem with the curriculum in Scotland is the lack of knowledge content. For instance my child did nat5 modern studies. Thry got 88%. They loathed the subject. Thought it was an idiotic waste of time, and having helped her revise I couldn’t agree more. You got marks for how you laid out the answer. Nothing else seemed to matter. Intro. 3 arguments for, 3 arguments against, conclusion. That’s it. They ended the course not even knowing who the Prime Minister was (“that lettuce lady?”). It’s nice that they know how to lay out a discursive essay but you’d expect them to cover a bit more content.

I totally agree with you, @Klippa . That issue has been raised before, and a teacher commented that that way of preparing pupils for exams has been put in place to get weak students the marks they need, and that strong pupils are free to go beyond that to write more freestyle answers.
But it seems that what has inevitably happened is that teaching pupils to use the "right words in the right places" is seen as the safe way to teach all pupils, and we now seem to have an exam system where if a child uses a slightly different way of explaining the same concept, they're marked down, with the people marking the papers not capable of, or not feeling that they're allowed to, use their own judgement in marking papers. I remember someone saying that they put down "precipitation" instead of "rain" and didn't get the mark.

IME I'd disagree that AH are a waste. I did two and DH also did two and in both instances it was beneficial in first year university. Mine were in English and a social subject and provided experience of essay writing which I needed when studying Law. DH did two STEM based AH and says it definitely made the transition into an Engineering degree easier. We both attended state primary and secondary schools.

@Wouldliketomove quality of life - yes. Run. It’s so much better. I’m a south of England raised person and wild horses wouldn’t drag me back permanently. Where i live is so green, there are so many amenities, cheap music and theatre tickets etc.

i did take my dc out of a Scottish state school - but i didn’t pick well for them and their issues the first time around, friends dc have been fine in the same school. It’s quite hard to pick schools well as your child’s educational issues aren’t always immediately apparent - whether they’re that kid that gets targeted or they’re that middle of the road kid that gets ignored…better to have a resilient attitude and a back up plan educationally.

there are plenty of opportunities for tutoring them or doing work on the side with them though.

I actually disagree with this (I'm Scottish but came England for my PhD and never left, but there are lots of teachers in my family and my DNs are all in Scotland so I'm aware of both systems). I know CfE is a mess but so is the English system.

England has no comprehensive education post 16. Many sixth forms are very selective about GCSE grades to cut out the students who will get less than a B at A level. There is extreme specialisation post 16 which at best leads to the 'two cultures' between the humanities and STEM and at worse writes off kids who don't do well at 15/16 and doesn't give them another chance to sit exams at that level until they are an adult and have to pay to do GCSEs. And if you choose an A level that you then hate or don't do well at it's a two year slog with long term consequences. I think post 16 education in Scotland is a strength because of the flexibility to mix Nat 5, Highers and Advanced Highers over 5th and 6th year. I know DD1 would have loved to study more subjects post 16 in England and found 3 A levels very restrictive, the Scottish system, or indeed the old AS level system in England would have suited her better. Applying to University post Highers means it's a much less stressful experience and avoids clearing. And 6th year potentially being a bit of a doss allows kids to learn to drive and try other subjects and do all the other things that helps them grow up, kids in England are much more likely to take a gap year post A levels and I'm sure it's because A levels are so intense. I also think the longer Scottish degree with more flexibility is better. Basically the English system doesn't allow you to trip up but the Scottish system does. In summary, there are issues with both systems.

Agree issues with both systems - on the 4 year degree, otoh you could say an extra year for the same degree as England is another year not earning and accruing debt. It depends on your child/young adult, and optimising what you can for them.

I see Highers as being roughly the equivalent of GCSEs, and bright children in England can do 12 GCSEs. So they get their chance to do a wide variety of subjects.

However, in Scotland as far as could see it was normal to do say Nat 5 history, followed by Higher history, followed by Advanced Higher history. So doing those 3 types of exams didn't give you a variety of subjects, unlike with 12 GCSEs. My DC did Nat 5s followed by Highers followed by 3 Advanced Highers and did FAR fewer subjects than if they'd studied GCSEs and A'levels. They basically didn't go beyond the subjects studied at Nat 5s (6 or 7 subjects), just went up to a higher level in some of those subjects.

Plus there were far fewer subjects to choose from than in your average English school. For instance there was no psychology at any level, and psychology is hugely popular in English schools. And there is a far wider choice of subjects at A'level than at Advanced Higher. Scottish schools don't see Advanced Higher exams as being a core offering, and what's on offer is often very limited.

My DC’s school offers Higher Psychology. I think offering a couple of arts subjects, social sciences, maths, sciences is a good enough spread to have an idea as to what you want to take further. My DC did Nat 5 Modern Studies (which I also thought was a boring compilation of random stuff - and I have a degree of mainly human geography subjects) the did a crash Higher in Geography. I just learned the other day to my astonishment that DH did a GCSE in Economics, he clearly didn’t learn much as he knows diddly swat about economics. Most of the kids I know do at least 2 and usually 3 advanced Highers.

Since when is GCSE equivalent to higher? Utter nonsense

5 Highers at age 16 (by children who started school at 5) over 1 year or 8 to 10 GCSEs (national average) at age 16 (by children who started school at 4) over 2 years. I'm struggling to see why saying that a GCSE is roughly equivalent to a Higher is "utter nonsense". Plus I've looked at some of those Highers. And I'm told that the music one is extremely basic - well below GCSE level.
We've also been given this information upthread:

GCSE
2 years learning
3 papers 1hr 30 mins each
Total 4 hrs 30

Scottish Higher
1 year learning
2 papers 1hr 30 and 1 hrs 45
Total 3hrs 15

I hope your DCs are ok. It sounds like they
must feel the platform their education gave them put them at a disadvantage and that’s not good.

Only one in the Scottish system. They did a lot on the side, which they got a lot out of in terms of both enjoyment and skills. But I do feel bad for them, to be honest. I too remember that awful moment when I realised what Nat 5 Modern Studies actually involved. I'd have been gnawing my own arm off.

Yes, I think modern studies particularly poor. My DC2 is busy this year with 3 AH, 2 part time jobs
over 4 afternoons, sports practice and game over 3 days and volunteering on Saturdays as extra for personal statement and DoE gold plus flute practice which seems to be going by the wayside. In all honesty, there’s a lot going on and an easy time of it academically wouldn’t go amiss.

What does that mean? One year learning? My daughter is in s3 now and already working on preparation for her nat5s and highers so what does one year of learning mean? Not arguing, just wondering. Whats the equivalent to Nat5s in England?

Some people think Nat 5 is just done in 4th year, yet every child I know does Nat 5 in s3 & s4. It’s odd.

My DCs school has some pupils who sit exams early and there is lots of flexibility. I don’t know any where it’s routine for most children to do that but if there is a particular cohort who are able I know DCs school would facilitate that. What usually happens in those cases is the option of those kids to get to AH stage a year or so early so they can do more. I have seen Scottish university prospectus state that they don’t take into account more than 5 Highers in S5 (presumably as not every school is able to offer that) but if AH is sat early then kids can leave school with 5 AH without to much complication.

I'm an immigrant so sometimes I just don't understand something that's obvious - but it seems like the whole structure leads up to highers / advanced highers. At least at my daughter's school they're streaming now into different cohorts who are aiming for Nat 4 / Nat 5 / highers... and then they'll have slightly different learning paces. Or at least that's what my daughter thinks is happening!

She has her first Nat 5 this year as dance is a year ahead so she does her higher in Dance in S4 and then drops it for S5/6 (though we are considering an HND at the college two days a week while she's in S5/6 - need to talk to her guidance teacher about how that could be timetabled). I am genuinely super impressed by the flexibility in all this.

My DC's school did Nat 5s as a one year course, in S4, which is I think what everyone used to do. Then Highers as a one year course, in S5, and Advanced Highers as a one year course in S6. I have heard that most schools have now moved into doing Nat 5s as a two year course. I'm so happy that this didn't happen to DC - God knows it was boring enough spending one year on Nat 5s - the thought of doubling the amount of time spent makes me shudder. The first 3 years were general learning rather than aiming at an exam. In theory, that would have been a great time to do some real, exciting, challenging learning. In practice the teachers seemed to treat it as a relaxing period of the children not learning much, doing almost no homework, etc, with the constant message that they were very young and shouldn't be expected to do much.

Highers were a one year course. Has that changed? In England, GCSEs are a 2 year course. There are no public exams at secondary school before GCSEs are taken at age 16. Then A' levels are a 2 year course and are taken at 18, with children having one more year at school than Scottish children. The 2 year 6th form is a big deal in England - very different from the relaxed 1 year 6th form in Scotland, with some people not going to school anymore, others just doing a couple of fun subjects at Higher level, etc, and almost no-one relying on 6th form grades counting for university. Even with 3 Advanced Highers, my DC had loads of free time. I was sad for my DC that they didn't have the real 6th form experience.

My DCs did 8 subjects in S3 then then decided which one to drop for S4 for Nat 5 assessment so essentially a 2 year course. The main N5 subject choice stage was at the end of S2.

As my brother’s DC2 school-refused during A levels, had a breakdown at school leading to the school finally listening and allowing a pause, spent 3 months not coming out of their room, sat A level on anti-depressants at the end of their 3rd year at 6th form college, is now having another break to recover and still hasn’t opened their A level results, am ok with my DCs school experience.

yes that's what I thought actually - she is doing her 8 choices now, needs to drop one for next year and then sit her Nat5s. Then drops another one for highers (which is dance in her situation as Dance highers are a year early). Then loads of choice around what S6 will look like depending on how all that goes and what she wants to do next.

I think the comment refers to what is actually examined on in the Nat 5 exam - S4 content - but this content builds top of S3 work.

It does seem to me that there is a worrying range of stretch between schools. I asked DC1 again if they felt they have been behind the (many) English kids on their STEM uni course at any stage and they said absolutely not. It sounds like that isn’t the experience for everyone which is a shame.

I think it varies between subjects too. I don't know much about the science side of things, and I think it's quite possible that that side of the curriculum is better than the arts and humanities side.