Talk:Education in Scotland

Template:Education infobox

I created a template, Template:Education infobox which can give a quick at a glance demographics table for education articles. See its implementation at Education in the United States and feel free to help improve the template.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested minor change to Intro

User:assuretech I might suggest that Schools in Scotland are not non-denominational at all. There is an established church in Scotland and schools are required to carry out common worship with a Christain bias - can someone fact-check ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.94.155 (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mais Oui! has advised that changes to “long standing” article introductions must be discussed first. His response to the attempt to tidy and make consistent with other similar articles has been to revert all of them without discussion.

In suggesting the following, single sentence, I was attempting to provide context to all readers, regardless of nationality. No change of substance to the content was made.

The system of Education in Scotland is part of the overall system of education in the United Kingdom. There are however significant differences between the Scottish system and that adopted in the rest of the UK.

I am not aware of the policy regarding changes to “long standing” intros., so would appreciate guidance.

I would also welcome comment on whether the suggested amendment harms the content or context of the article in any way – or whether it should stand as an improvement to the set of articles covering education in the UK. leaky_caldron 08:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what I meant. I was responding rather peevishly to a rather long, impatient edit summary of yours in like terms - tit-for-tat if you like - which admittedly is not very constructive. No, I will tell you what I believe to be the fundamental problem with your attempted new intro: it is Original research. I have never heard of a "system of education in the United Kingdom". Where did you read of such a system? What is its history, nature, institutions and structure? Where are the sources? There is, for example, no Wikipedia article on such a system (your link merely leads to a page of links). Please read WP:CITE too. (A minor point, but you do seem rather keen on "uniformity" too. Just because one Wikipedia article says something is absolutely not a reason why other articles must say the same thing: each article must stand on its own two feet, firmly grounded on external sources.)--Mais oui! 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

is it the word "system" you dislike? I'm sure that there are many references to "systems of education" - call it all "original research" if you like - some things just become straightforward custom & practice. I think you are splitting hairs - the phrase is stock - but I'm happy to change it to something less contentious.

I think to make the proposed changes work, the Education in the United Kingdom article needs to made more meaningful. In fact it is really a dab page. It is of fairly low quality really.

Do the work on that, then come and amend the intros here, and England, and elsewhere. Frelke 10:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As for "uniformity" - you are absolutely correct - that's they way references documents should be. Frankly, at worst it's totally harmless and not something any sensible individual should raise concerns about. The articles were previously "uniform" - but just plain badly introduced without the wider UK context. Whether we like it or not, the UK of England, Sootland & Wales exists, not just the separate countries.

Please consider revising not reverting (esp. without explanation). It's much easier to get along that way.leaky_caldron 09:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

how many citations / generally used references are needed?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=system+of+education+in+UK&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2006.

What utter nonsense!!! Google does not = citations. Take the first hit on Google from that query. It takes you to a TeacherNet holding page - with 4 subpages:

• System structure
• Examinations & qualifications
• Government organisations
• Glossary

and if you go to the first of those it doesn't even mention "system of education in UK". It talks - as we do - about Education in the constituent elements of the UK. The Ed in the UK page is just sending everyone back to the constituent parts. It is a nonsense for the intro here (and in England and the other pages) sending everyone back to the UK page for nothing more than a list of links. Especially when the intro, as was, worked all of these links neatly into the text to make it encyclopaedic and good quality hypertext. As soon as the UK page has something of interest on it, I will make the changes myself and add the links back, but until then lets not pretend it is doing anything wbut referencing a list of links. Frelke 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

as well as condemning my well intentioned aim of attempting to tidy these articles could you possibly turn your considerable Wiki experience to resolving the abject nonsense contained in the intro. to the article on Northern Ireland education Education in Northern Ireland. Even without my reverted changes it is actually utter, contradictory bollocks as I've attempted to explain but, no doubt, someone would find a reason to rv any changes I make - so why bother leaky_caldron 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I do not know very much abt Education in NI, I'll decline your offer gracefully. I think I understand what it is saying, but I may be picking up the wrong end of the stick for all i know. Frelke 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement of article

This article has the potential to grow into a great article. We could mention (at least briefly) issues such as:

• Curriculum and it's evolution (e.g. 5-14, A Curriculum for Excellence).
• Assessment and how it is monitored and deployed at a national (as well as a school) level. This could include Assessment is for Learning (AifL).
• The recent ASL act.

MP (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of secondary education in Scotland there. Is there such an article already ? MP (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this article needs expansion on all of the above. --Bob 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Something about the Comprehensive system in Scotland (how prevalent? when introduced? why so different from England & Wales?) is essential! I've added a link here from Comprehensive school, but I was hoping for a bit more info! Omicron18 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

School Years Table

I think the school years table needs a little amendment as the start ages seem out by a year. For example pupils start secondary school in Scotland (in S1) at the age of 12 and are usually 13 when they finish the year. Pupils also start S6 at the age of 17 and leave at the age of 18. Earlier years should be adjusted accordingly. Maybe some confusion has crept in because some pupils take their Highers in S5 (and maybe even S4).

Is this information verifiable. I have never worked on this principle. English Reception is equivalent to Scottish Primary 1 not nursery, leading primary 7 and year 6 being comparable. Children start P1 in order that they will be 5 during that year at some point (in general) making it equivalent to the reception year. I have made the changes I think it needs, any comments? --Brideshead 11:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I had originally put them in as you have entered them. I think it is difficult to directly compare the two systems for school years and either way is going to make it imperfect. Works for me, but yes we need to find a source or citation. Davidkinnen 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, I was unsure about changing it without discussion, but it seemed to make slightly more sense this way. You're right though. The two systems don't merge properly but this looks about the best we can do. --Brideshead 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; although the ages may be slightly different, pupils transferring from Primary 4 (for example) to an English school will generally go into Year 4, not Year 3. Also, Year 12 and Year 13 are lower sixth and upper sixth form (and therefore the equivalents of S5 and S6), not Years 11 and 12 as in the article. Lottieicf 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem in comparing the two systems is the age that a child starts a certain year. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a child has to be a certain age on the 1 September to begin attending class that September meaning that the oldest children in that year are born in September while the youngest are born in August. However this is different in Scotland where a child has to be a certain age on 1 March to begin attending class in August meaning the oldest children are born in March while the youngest are are born in February. To add to this confusion children born in January and February can and sometimes are "held back" a year whereby they spend an extra year at Nursery School and start school the following August. So while in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it is simple to say everyone in Year 11 will be between the ages of 15 and 16 in Scotland pupils in Secondary 4 could be between 14 and 16.5. So pupils tranfering from Primary 4 to an English school would go into Year 4 if they were born between March and August while they would go into Year 3 if they were born between September and Feruary. Pupils transfering from Year 10 to a Scottish school would go into Secondary 3 if they born between September and February while they would go into Secondary 2 if they were born between March and August. marsbar_man 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

it is a very difficult situation, the systems don't merge, however I don't think that the current table shows an accurate general impression of the two systems. Although the ages are slightly different Primary 1 equates better to Reception, leading Primary 7 to mesh with year 6. This seems to be more representative of the true, very complex, situation. --Brideshead 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But if that were the case then that would mean there are fourteen years in the English school system. For example, if Reception and Primary one are the same, meaning Primary Seven is the same as Year Six then Sixth Year would link with Year Twelve. So where does Year Thirteen fit in? Also, this site seems to show nursery school in Scotland corresponds to Reception class in England ([1])--Cosmic quest 03:58, 17 October 2006

But there _are_ fourteen years in the English and Welsh System: 3 at infants or Key Stage 1 (years R, 1 and 2) (Note: reception is not the same as nursery - nursery is pre-reception. Children go into year R during the year they become 5, and are at least 4 and a half (they start in the term preceeding their 5th birthday typically) - which seems to correspond to the description in the article of Primary 1); 4 years at juniors or Key Stage 2 (years 3 to 6); and 7 years at secondary (years 7 to 13) of which the last two are not compulsory, and which students who take an extra year finish at age 19). I always thought the Scottish system finished a year younger than England and Wales anyway, because Scottish students qualify for University a year younger. 90.213.139.19 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This get's more difficult doesn't it? I suppose one way of thinking of would be in terms of compulsary education. In Scotland Nursery provision is available for all 3 and 4 year olds but is not compulsary and thus children don't begin compulsary education until P1, (4 and a half to 5 and a half). Is reception in England compulsary education or do parents have the choice until year one? --Brideshead 10:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Brideshead has got it right. There seems to be an extra year in England at secondary level. 5 to GCSE (Year 7 to 11) then 2 for A-level (Year 12 and 13) often known lower and upper sixth. In Scotland upper sixth must equate to a seventh year and hence fourteen in all. I only contribute from personal experience - my education in Scotland - my children's in England. However, I wonder why it's necessary to compare at all. Surely it's a diversion of confusion? --

There is seven years in the English seconday school system (and children do six years of primary school) whereas it's the opposite in Scotland with children studying at primary school for seven years then going to secondary school for six years. In both countries, that adds up to thirteen years of schooling altogether. I think Reception class is just another word for nursery school (I remember my English cousin going to her Reception class at her school but uniform wasn't worn until she started Year One). In Scotland, not all primary schools have a nursery school in the building so this is where the confusion is coming from.])--Cosmic quest 18:50, 31 October 2006

No, Reception class is not another word for nursery school. 90.213.139.19 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the table is misleading as it is. For academic comparison, I would agree that S6 is roughly equivalent to Year 13, but from an age comparison, I'm not sure it works. Looking at the start of the table: The oldest children in P1 would always be in Year 1 together with the youngest from P2. The youngest from P1 would be in year R, which would not have nursery age children in it - Year R has staggered intake, so that children start the term before they turn 5 (ie children younger than 4 and a half are not part of year R, they are still of nursery age. In some schools you may get a class that is mixed part time nursery children with full time reception class children - but technically formal education begins in year R). Year R is missed off the table entirely. Maybe a better solution to trying to match the systems in terms of age comparison is to include 2 year groups in the English and Welsh column? ie P1 - year R/1, through to S6 - year 12/13 ? 90.213.139.19 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's over a month later, and no one has commented, so I've been BOLD and changed it. I can't see any other way to map 14 years to 13, even though the same ages are covered, especially given the ages being in the table (no 16 year old for example would be in year 13, so as it stood before it was misleading) 90.213.139.19 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

QMU

Queen Margaret is not in Edinburgh (as the list shows), but in East Lothian. I seem to see this a lot on wikipedia. It can be described as being "near Edinburgh", but the campus is in East Lothian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.180 (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History of education in Scotland

I appreciate that that section was far too long for this main article, and therefore needing splitting out into its own article. However it is standard Wikipedia in-house style to leave a brief summary of the topic in the main article! Not simply a bare link to the new article. For examples, please see the subsection format of any FA articles (eg, Belgium). --Mais oui! (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has now removed about two thirds of the History article in one edit. Please see: Talk:History of education in Scotland. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Qualification exam

I note that Qualification exam is a redlink. Should we start a stub on it, and redirect Qually to the new stub? Eg. please see:

• It comes after speculation of a return to the old Qualification exam - or "qually" - in Scotland., BBC 8 Jan 09

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic

This article really should have at least a couple of sentences on Gaelic, with integrated links to Gaelic medium education in Scotland (just having that in the see also section is not enough) and similar, and info on Gaelic as a second language at school. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish primary pupils to be taught two foreign languages

I am surprised to note that there is virtually no mention of the actual content of Scottish primary education. Just a lot of stuff about ages. We really ought to have a go at creating a proper, referenced section regarding primary education. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing private and state?

Why is Robert Gordon's in the "Secondary school naming" list? The list states that these are state schools, but RG (as its own page says) is private. I guess somebody thought that it's of interest to mention the places named College, but then we'd need to change the numbers anyway and include others like George Watson's in Edinburgh; or be clear that the list included independent schools. Or am I missing something about RG's status? – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not "Education" but "formal Education"

As the article is about formal "education" and primarily about schooling I suggest the title should be changed to "Formal Education in Scotland" with a similar approach taken for other regional articles. Education is a lifelong and unrestricted process that formal "education" systems are only a small part of (and some would argue are counter to lifelong educational goals), therefore restricting the word "education" to that which operates under a formal system is incorrect.

--Farnishk (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which regional articles are you thinking of that do this. I note that there are articles for Education in England, Education in Wales and Education in France.--SabreBD (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias in tone

There is a strange tone in the lead to this article, almost like advertising - others have an opinion? - Sara FB (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Which bit is the problem?--SabreBD (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see that there is any strange tone or indeed that any bias is prevalent in the lead for this article. It appears factual and balanced. It also seems to reasonably summarise some of the key points of the article. The Scottish educational system has remained separate from the education systems in the other countries of the UK and the article lead seems to be able to represent some of the elements of what is distinctive about the Scottish system. The article lead also currently manages to steer clear of mentioning more controversial distinctive elements, such as the notable policy differences around University tuition fees that exist between Scotland and other parts of the UK. If I were to pick a fault with the lead, I would highlight that the lead (and the article as a whole) is lagging behind a bit in terms of its coverage of the recent resurgence in gaelic-medium education, which is another fairly unique element. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)