Scottish Secondary - Please help. New National 4/5 how many will your council allow?

[mustdash]

Sorry this is long, but please help if you can.

I expect you'll only know the answer to this if you are a secondary teacher, or have a child currently in S1 or P7. I'll ask anyway, in the hope of getting enough answers to get some idea about how screwed children in Angus are going to be, compared to the rest of Scotland, if not the whole UK.

I discovered yesterday that for the new CfE National 4/5s Angus are only going to permit 5 subjects. I believe that nationally councils are allowed to chose a number between 5 and 8, and that the number they chose will apply to all state schools in their burgh.

I am seriously concerned that if children in Angus can only chose 5 subjects they will be badly disadvantaged in the future career or education market, and feel that S3 is far too young to be narrowing down such serious choices.

My thoughts, still a little random and ill informed are these;-

• one of the main benefits of the "old' Scottish system was that having Highers before CSYS/Advanced Higher/A level was that it gave a broader education, and allowed children the opportunity to go into subjects in some depth before committing to final secondary year or uni. We are now asking children to make these choices 2 years earlier.

• if you chose a subject at the end of S3, and later discover you don't want to/aren't capable of taking it any further, you are already cutting down your Higher options. (Personal experience here, loved O grade Physics, hated hated Higher, and dropped it - fortunately I was lucky enough to be able to pick up a crash higher in another subject)

• academic children will be forced to drop arts subjects in S3, since they won't have the scope to do eg 3 sciences, and music/art.

• fewer children doing "minority" subjects like eg art or music will mean fewer teachers and resources...and that our children will face a narrow and restrictive curriculum - the opposite of what I thought CfE was supposed to achieve.

• Angus council have apparently stated that 5 subjects is sufficient because

a) that's what all the other councils are doing and b) five is the average number of standard/o grade type subject currently being sat by pupils at the end of S4.

Though they clearly have no grasp of how averages work, and seem to think that it is acceptable to apply a lowest common denominator approach to the whole system, I can't believe it is the same everywhere.

Can you please tell me how many subjects your council will be allowing for the current S1/P7 children onwards?

Sorry this is so long, and thanks for reading this far! Any other random thoughts very welcome!

I actually think it is okay up to a point for not all schools to be doing the same, but I think there should be an agreed minimum offered/timetabled. So, if the timetable can cope with, say 8 subjects then as a minimum 6 of those should be offered at national 5 - less able students could aim for 4 but follow the same curriculum - if it was felt that they were able to sit the 5 exam then fine, if not they could be assessed for a 4 internally with the option of doing the 5 in 5th year. The remaining slots could either be used by doing something the school can't offer e.g. a vocational topic or maybe something at another nearby school, or they could be used to take 1 or more National 5s.

I am sure it would be a nightmare to organise, but it would give the kids some better options.

IME my year groups parents (S2) across different schools in Edinburgh seem not to have a clue about the N4/5s. Though the schools have all had meetings on CfE, parents have come away completely befuzzled on what it actually means eg too much jargon speak.

Some believe it is just a renaming of the current exams.

Currently my DS school will sit some exams next week re setting for N4/5 in some core subjects ie put on the pathway to sit the N4 or N5 in S4. I've heard almost no comments on this.

hefirstmrsrochester - Maths and English are not compulsory!

Maths, English + Foreign language were at ours.

Maths & English compulsory in our region. The whole set up of the new system is to deliver a broad general education. If you get to opt out of maths and English, you are shutting the door to the majority of further and higher education.

I don't know, I'm presuming they are attempting to go the way of GCSE's where some pupils get 5 and some get 10!

The way it was explained at the individual parents nights was, that National 5's were credit level. Then if they gained those they could move on to highers. When we went to the S1 meeting, they'd only just received the guidelines and couldn't tell us anything.

But Edinburgh seem to be allowing each school to make decisions as to what suits the school's needs. All of us within my friendship group have different ways of it being done and introduced.

Maths/English/French/Science choice/Social Subject/culture-art seem to be the "core" at ours with choices in various others. Dd is annoyed as Business Studies and Home Ec are in the same column and she didn't fancy the "technical" subject column.

I still feel at just turned 13 she's having to make choices young. As someone who's standard grades were in business and computing subjects and I am a Nursery Nurse! But there were no "vocational" type subjects offered.

At dd's school Maths and English are recommended, not compulsory in S4.

Apparently numeracy and literacy are supposed to be covered in all subjects at N4/N5 level.

Purple That's shocking as I've mentioned above to get on a modern apprenticeship with us, you have to have both at a decent pass. The higher the better.

But hasn't it always been unequal?

When I was sitting "O" grades and Highers (over 30 years ago) we were allowed by our (state school) to sit 8-10 "O" grades (I "only" did 8, but that was because I was still catching up, having been abroad for 2 years and only returned 6 months before the exams) and then a whole group of us sat 6 "Highers" in 5th Year and some of that group also did at least one extra "O" grade at the same time.

I do agree that it seems wrong that some schools seem to be restricting choices and/or expecting children to specialise far too early .

In contrast, ds has just got his extremely good S1 school report home and in the Science comments, it specifically says "Keep up the good work and enthusiasm most of all. In second year also try and focus on which science or sciences you are particularly interested in with regard to your option choices at the end of that year."

prettybird - we were only allowed 8 o grades and 5 highers - no idea how they fitted any more into the timetable!

Well done on the report - we got No1 son's report yesterday too - very proud mum and dad - seems he wasn't exaggerating when he said he that he was doing great! He doesn't have to choose until Jan of 3rd year but it's going to be tough as he seems to be good at everything (sounds a bit boasty but don't mean to be) Going from personal experience, i'd say Biology is a good one to pick up later as it is (or was) much easier than Chemistry or Physics and not sure now if computing science counts in the science box or tech box.

But isn't that the point? some schools did, even back then, and some didn't.

In retrospect, I don't know how they fitted them in either - and I even had a couple of free periods, during which I studied Russian! (friends actually did the Russian "O" grade alongside their Highers, but I was still twitchy about "catching up") . I think they did things that wouldn't be accepted now, like allow us to drop all PE and non-Academic subjects, even in 4th year.

We weren't doing "fluff" subjects - at least 6 of us did Maths,Physics, Chemistry, English, French, Latin (or German) - and most of us got 6 As.

I think you're right about Biology - iirc, that was one of the reasons my friends stayed on to do 6th year, so that they could add Biology to their exam passes before going on to Medical/Vet school.

That was tough going! I wasn't that clever....well actually I have no idea if i was that clever tbh. I was brought up the youngest of a large family on a rough council estate - my parents left "all that school stuff" to the school to deal with. I was never encouraged or pushed and nothing much was expected - it wasn't their fault, that's just the way it was then for a lot of families. I took and passed 8 o grades and took and passed 4 highers and another o grade in 5th year tho really i only stayed on because I couldn't get a job. I never studied or made that much effort really, so maybe I could have done a lot better with a bit of motivation and hard work.

prettybird my issue is that the number of subjects in S4 is down to 6.; for every student regardless of ability. As you point out there has always been inequality of opportunity between schools but this seems a retrograde step, especially for the academically able.

s3worries - i think it is more of an issue for the academically in-between. The more able will do their Highers or (National 6/7s when they are ready) so the 5s become almost irrelevant. The less able will do 4s and be in much the same position as they would have been with foundation/general standards albeit with no external exam. The in-between kids may end up leaving education with 6 n5s instead of 7/8 standard grades.

The hardest bit for the more able kids in that situation is that they will need to be awfully sure of what highers they want to do at least a year earlier than they used to.

I have heard the argument that the standard grades "don't matter" for those who do Highers but if you are interested in languages and sciences and the humanities why shouldn't you be able to study them all at the age of 14/15?

And as soontobe says why does a pupil with ability in all areas have to choose at the end of S3?

And I forgot to mention music and art. oops!

What worries me is that there will be teens leaving at the age of sixteen with only N4 of which as an employer I would not be interested in.

I agree with the above, narrowing of subject choice at such an early age is not a good thong.

S3 I agree, I'd much prefer a wider range of subjects as isn't this the ethos of the whole thing? That it's about creating rounded citizens? Even with the 7 on offer at our school, i still think that is a struggle and a child with an ability across all subjects will find it hard to narrow down their options - I've no idea how those with only 5 or 6 choices are going to manage :(

I wouldn't like to speculate on the exact reasons, but the head of a school in our area who was proposing only 5 N5s strangely disappeared and was replaced as Head by the deputy of a school offering 7 - they are now offering 7 as well. It is maybe worth a protest to the council/education authority for those parents who find themselves in a similar situation.

Sadly I'll be protesting to no-one as I believe it would get me precisely nowhere. There is not a groundswell of opinion on this among parents I know.

I'm hoping we look back in a few years and wonder why we were so worried. My boys are both fairly academic so I am not that worried, just a bit disappointed that their choice will be limited to 7 subjects. However, i know that others have it much worse and i worry that it is all still a bit "finger in the air".

maybe it's because people don't understand?

Me too!

I agree with you about how awful it is that choice is being restricted too soon (and in some cases as early as S2 - S1 if you count when they have to make their choices)

I couldn't decide between Arts & Sciences and very consciously did 3 of each - helping to make my choice about which subjects to drop easier.

You're also right about the more able being least able and it will probably be the middle kids who lose out the most - and more so at some schools than others.

Ds is already doing a period less a week of English and Maths than most of the others in his class to no (apparent) detriment as he is in the School of Rugby (so gets extra rugby sessions), so it is possible to juggle hours, when there is a will to do so.

Standard Grades meant you got 7/8 qualifications. Dh only has 3 O Grades. He's by no means stupid but refused to work.

I just feel because this hasn't been given time for the staff to take the curriculum change and learn about it in depth, doesn't give me very much confidence. The CfE has been introduced in early years for the last 7 years so I feel I have a good grasp on it compared to what is being introduced at High School level.

I'm saddened to read that employers seem reluctant to accept N4's as apparently it will still be a qualification but marked internally rather than externally.