The long road to Chartered Teacher

Ooh, I was grumpy on Thursday. Although I’m still a bit annoyed that I might have to rethink my plans, I’ve decided that as this is a very narrow, personal and quite negative way of reflecting on some very wide ranging proposals.

Gordon has helpfully summarised the proposals. I’d like to use this summary as a frame for my thoughts:

“1. New qualifications in literacy and numeracy will be developed at SCQF levels 3, 4 and 5. Pupils will take these in S4 or later and will include a mixture of internal and external assessment.”
Although clearly literacy & numeracy skills are essential for our learners, does creating new assessments mean that these skills will be improved? There is a drive from CfE to embed these skills more explicitly across the curriculum and perhaps this is an attempt to ensure this happens? Does this replace traditional Maths & English qualifications, or is this as well as?

“2. Standard Grade and Intermediate 1 and 2 qualifications will be replaced by a new set of qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5. Standard Grade foundation level (SCQF level 3) will be replaced by Access 3.”
This is the most eye catching proposal. I’m finding it hard to objectively reflect on this, and I suppose this is partly due to the fact that I have no idea what these new qualifications will look like. It is clear to me that these qualifications do need rationalised and a rethink is in order, but how far will it go? Will the learning outcomes be dramatically different, and will they be successfully reflected in the assessment materials? I suppose only time will tell. So, it appears that I actually agree that change is necessary - I just don’t like that it’s happening now!

“3. Highers are seen as the “gold standard” of Scottish education. All national qualifications, including Higher and Advanced Higher will, however be reviewed to ensure consistency with curriculum for excellence.”
This is probably good news. It’d be even more scary if these were being replaced at the same time, and it would be frustrating if they weren’t tweaked to fit in with the changes taking place below.

“4. More flexibility will be embedded in the system. This is likely to include a winter diet of examinations and the most able pupils bypassing lower levels.”
Interesting…In my limited experience, flexibility costs money - primarily through smaller class sizes. Although great in principle, are schools equipped to offer real flexibility? If not, how will this be resolved?

“There was a very clear indication that pupils would not take qualifications until S4 at the earliest except for exceptional circumstances. It was also noted that new qualifications would be likely to be implemented in 2012/2013, ie for those pupils currently in P6.”
I’m not sure what is meant by this S4 thing. This is when the majority of pupils sit their exams anyway. Does it mean that pupils wont formally embark on these qualifications until S4? Does this mean that the traditional S1/S2 is being extended into S3? If so, what impact does this have on a school like mine which decided a few years ago that S2 wasn’t working so they now start their Standard Grade/Intermediate 1/Access 3 courses in S2 instead of S3?

2012/13? - that leaves us with another three years of the current system. I suppose that this means that we should have a fair idea where this is all heading in two years time (and we already have an idea from the Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes). So, I suppose if I develop our activities in line with CfE, they will probably transfer across to the new system - and maybe help us to contribute to the consultation process?

So overall, I think I’m in favour of this. It has been on the horizon since I arrived back in Scotland as a teacher, and in many ways it’s exciting that it’s happening now. However, change is always threatening and uncomfortable - but it’s also inevitable.

I’ve just seen this on the BBC News website:

Although this threat has been there for some time, my heart sank when I saw it. When these initiatives & changes come along, I find it quite hard to commit to putting in extra effort to update and improve courses which could well be in the bin very soon. To finally see Standard Grade’s card being marked is particularly disappointing for me personally. Due to the current “efficiency savings” we are having to review our departmental resources as we will not be able to afford the photocopying in the future. I had decided to use this as an opportunity to try to develop & improve the course to encompass the Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes and to incorporate activities which are based on ideas such as active learning and social constructivism. In fact, I have started the process of collecting some baseline data for this project this week. This would obviously be a very long and demanding task - probably taking nearly two years to complete.

I am now faced with the prospect of carrying out two years worth of developmental work (and encouraging my department to join in) with the axe hanging over my (our) head(s) - so to speak.

I know the new courses will probably not be a million miles away from what we currently have and that they (probably) will incorporate Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes [for some reason this isn't actually mentioned in the article - surely this is what is driving this change!?!?] - but this doesn’t help with my demotivation. I really struggle to go the extra mile when I’m not sure of the long-term plan.

Am I being unreasonable?

In a previous post I finished by pondering on the ideology behind the Scottish and English education systems:
“England seems to be more right wing - devolved responsibilty for LEA’s and schools. Whereas Scotland seems more left wing - more centralised decision making from council HQ and the Executive.”

I think I’m now about to contradict myself. It occured to me the other night that there is significant difference in the approaches of the two countries to science education. In England, all pupils must study all three sciences until the end of key stage 4 (approx. 16 years old). When I was there, they could do this in three ways: single, double or triple award. In this way they all studied all three sciences but were awarded one, two or three GCSEs depending how much time they had spent studying it. The science curriculum has changed this year down south, so I’m not sure exactly how it works now, but I’m sure it still involves all pupils studying all three sciences until the end of key stage 4.

So, how does it work in Scotland? Well, in my experience so far, most schools teach all three sciences for the first two years (S1 & 2). From there the pupils choose their standard grades/int.1, which must include at least one science. In my current school this is slightly different as pupils are starting their standard grades/int.1 in S2, which means they study all three sciences for one year instead of two. I’ve also heard that in Scottish state schools it can often be difficult for pupils to take all three sciences at standard grade/int.1 due to timetable constraints.

The Scottish system is actually very similar to my own experience as a pupil. My year was the last in Northern Ireland to choose the sciences as seperate subjects, and although we could choose all three if we wanted to, I didn’t - mainly due to my relationship with my Physics teacher.

I feel that there are negative outcomes for both systems. As I have continued to pursue the study and teaching of science, I’ve always regretted dropping physics. Post 16, all three sciences are quite inter-linked and I suspect a better grounding in all three would have assisted my studies. It would certainly have enabled me to be a more effective key stage 3 teacher in England! Instead, I spent a lot of time learning physics on the job. Are we going to produce the well rounded scientists of tomorrow if many pupils aren’t studying one or two of the sciences past the age of 12/13?

I also believe that there is a wider social value to compulsory science education until the age of 16. Certainly as a Biology teacher, I really do feel that society as a whole benefits from every individual having an understanding of the biological processes taking place inside their bodies, and the world around them. But then, do all teachers think that their subject is very important and should be compulsory until 16? I suspect so.

There are problems with the English system too. One of the things I was dreading about teaching in England was having to teach a compulsory GCSE subject. When I was at school, the subjects we had chosen were normally enjoyable and with good behaviour. The subjects we were forced to take (English, Maths, French, RE) were a different matter! But once I was teaching it never seemed as bad as I worried it would be. I’m not sure why this is, but I suspect that it is often easier to engage challenging pupils with science compared with French and RE, thus making the enforced nature of the subject less of a problem.

The other major drawback of compulsory science education to 16 is the effect on staffing and resources. It means much larger science departments, and although it’s great news for science teachers jobwise, I suspect it’s the reason science classes in England have not been capped at 20 - as science classes have been in Scotland, and other practical subjects (design & technology) have been in England.

So, how have I contradicted myself? We’ll here we have a situation where in England the state has dictated that all pupils will study all three sciences until the age of 16, whereas in Scotland the state has given pupils the freedom to choose their own science education. Perhaps I jumped too quickly to a conclusion!

Which do you think is better?

Sorry I’ve not written anything since my first post. I’ve no excuse really. I will try to do better from now on.

I thought it might be a good idea to start by thinking about what is the most noticeable difference between teaching in England and Scotland. Before making the move, I would have predicted that it would be something to do with Highers and A Levels, or GCSE’s and Standard Grades. I would have been wrong. As a Science teacher the most striking difference when you walk into your classroom is that it looks as if half the kids haven’t turned up!

There is a cap of 20 on class sizes in Science on this side of the border - and in my limited experience it’s often less than this. I initially assumed that this was some sort of new initiative, but during a discussion with my colleagues a few days ago I discovered that this was introduced nearly 30 years ago!

When I taught in England I had classes of up to 31. Even my sixth form classes were often over 20. When a class of 30 twelve year olds where carrying out a practical using bunsen burners I no longer felt like an educator, but a health and safety supervisor - making sure no-one hurt themselves was all I could really think about. What really confused me back then was why the technical subjects had a maximum of 20 students in their classes, but we did not.

And now my wish has come true. Any teachers reading this will appreciate the difference it makes having a few less kids in a class. Three or four absentees can have an enormous effect on your lessons. Well, for me at the minute it’s a bit like there are always ten pupils missing!