The long road to Chartered Teacher

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?

My wife has finally managed to get herself a full time permanent post for next year. She is a primary teacher with a wealth of experience. When we were planning to leave Africa and come home we had assumed that she’d have no trouble getting a job and I would. How wrong we were. What has been most surprising is that most of her applications didn’t even result in an interview. When she has managed to get in the door, her interviewers sing her praises!

This experience has caused me to reflect on the Scottish approach to appointing newly qualified teachers. We both assume that one of the reasons it has been so hard for her to find a post is the system of guaranteeing a job for one year to NQT’s; this combined with the large number of teachers being trained these days.

We have been on the receiving end of this system before. When we last lived in Scotland, my wife had a temporary contract which she hoped would soon become permanent. I went off to England to train as a teacher, hoping to come back afterwards. While I was down south, the guaranteed system came in. My wife could no longer have her job, and there was nothing for me to apply for. So we had to move to England.

I can see the attraction of offering trainees a year’s work, especially when so many are being trained. But I have to wonder if it is the best thing for the schools and pupils of Scotland, or the trainees themselves. It results in a very high turnover in quite small departments that may otherwise have benifted from some stability. And the trainees often seem to be sent somewhere quite far from where they live. You also then have this strange system whereby NQT’s in one council are favoured for permanent jobs over NQT’s from other councils and experienced teachers.

These thoughts then naturally bring me to comparing back to England. Now, I think I was quite lucky with my job in England, but I can only speak for my own experiences. I was appointed in the February of my PGCE year, and it was a permanent post from September. I was supported massively by my department, school and LEA in my NQT year and beyond. From day one I knew I’d be working in this school for a number of years and committed great effort to my work knowing that the department and myself would benefit from those efforts. It is very settling knowing that your contract isn’t coming to an end.

The broader conclusion I have drawn from this comparison is the ideological differences between Scottish and English education. 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.

Is this an unfair conclusion to make? Which is better anyway?

I’m in the middle of marking prelims at the moment - lucky me!

One thing that has really struck me since picking up the mighty red pen in Scotland is just how many exam questions there are here which require more answers than the marks available for the question. There’s lots of things like “3 correct = 2 marks, 2 correct = 1 mark, 1 correct = 0 marks”

As far as I can remember, these are very rare down south. I find it weird writing a zero next to a correct answer. These Scots really make you work for your marks - “You know a correct answer? Pah! You’ll be having nothing ’till you can come up with two.”

What a strange difference.

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!

So, I’ve decided to give this blogging thing a go.

It seems to be that everyone is blogging these days, but I have to admit I’m not entirely convinced that there’s always a purpose. I worry that by having a blog I am just making more work for myself and that it’s all a bit egocentric. Despite this I’ve decided to go ahead anyway. This is mainly due to the fact that I’ve thought of a possible reason for me writing a blog. I’ve trained and taught in England and I’ve made the move North of the border.

I’ve seen and heard quite a few discussions about making this move. Most of them have been along the lines of ‘is it possible?’ and ‘how hard is it?’. It’s also interesting to compare the two systems, and I have experience of one and I’m gaining experience of another.

Why have I ended up in this position? Well, I left Northern Ireland after school and did my biology degree in Scotland. I then decided that teaching would be a potentially good career for me. So I went to England to do my PGCE where they were offering lots of money and my plan was to try to come back up after the PGCE. Unfortunately this was the year that Scotland introduced the guaranteed job for one year for NQT’s. Because of this there were no jobs being advertised and I stayed down South.

With three years in a girls’ grammar school in the South of England behind me, I worked as an advisory teacher in Africa for one year. Returning to the UK was then the perfect opportunity to finally make the move back to Scotland.

So here I am, a few months into Scottish Education and my head is still swimming with terms like ’standard grade’, ‘NAB’, ‘higher’, ‘arrangement documents’, ‘intermediate 1′, ‘LO3′……..

If you like, you can follow me while I try to unravel this confusion.