What next?

So, they’ve only gone and done it. SF & DUP in government together. As someone who grew up in NI, I have a range of thoughts/feelings on this. Firstly, it’s something that few really believed would EVER happen. If it couldn’t work with the moderates, it would never even get started with the extremists. But here it is, unbelievable.

There are obviously many people who are deeply hurt by this move ‘forwards’. I can only imagine what it must be like to have lost someone in the troubles, never mind having to deal with this as well. But the majority of Norn Irish seem to feel that it doesn’t matter who’s in there as long as people stop being injured and killed.

And what about education? Last time round Martin McGuiness (SF) was Education Minister and I seem to remember everyone being pleasantly surprised with how well he performed in this role. SF have education again this time in the form of Caitríona Ruane and it remains to be seen how she will perform. Their education policy does contain quite a few contentious issues such as the scrapping of grammar schools, the promotion of Irish-medium schools and the creation of an all-Ireland education system. The Irish-language issue has already come up in the Belfast Telegraph.

I think the way the NI Assembly is designed is that if one lot has a Ministry, then the Assembly committee is chaired by a representative of the other lot. Although this ensures both sides are represented in each area of power sharing, it’s bound to set up some whopping great arguments. People often say, as long as they’re arguing over education instead of actually fighting, we should be happy. But what effect will these arguments have on the schools and pupils of NI? Will there be a consistent improvement to education, or ideological point scoring?

As a voter, I know which of these would impress me.

Contradiction

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?

Hello world!

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.