1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

2+2+2>>3+3??

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by gnulinux, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. gnulinux

    gnulinux Occasional commenter

    2+2+2 is similar to the existing structure and so known and therefore safe. 3+3 with its 3rd year of BGE is more risky in a number of ways. Less time for N4/5's. Narrowing of the curriculum is almost a certainty. Subjects at risk of disappearing altogether - jeopardising pupil choice and preparedness for future education and/or work.

    Discuss!!
     
  2. sbf

    sbf New commenter

    What about
    1+2+2+1
    Yes folks, its out there.

     
  3. In actual fact, we've used that formula for years, and it's been great. Everyone moaned about S2 being a waste of time, the last year of a nine-year course, at the end of which you threw everything away and started again. So we moved the S-Grade folio programme down to S2 and S3, which gives an extra 3 months to finish it off. S4 then became de facto the first year of a two year Higher course, although they do the S-Grade exam as a sideline. Then there is one year to do Advanced Higher for those who want. Attainment at both S-Grade and Higher has gone up and stayed up, and we have one of the biggest uptakes for Advanced Higher in the country, because the pupils like the pace and challenge of English, as well as the opportunity the virtual extra year gives you to have a bit of a laugh. Unfortunately, CfE, instead of getting rid of the wasted year, has added another one.
     
  4. Yes, this. Parents need to know about this now.
     
  5. I'm in primary and had absolutely no idea of the ramifications of the 3+3 model until very recently. I'm a parent of an S1 kid (sorry secondary colleagues!!) and am none to pleased about the possibility of reduced subject choice further up the school. Sorry, not reduced subject choice, reduced qualification choice.
    I don't care what Mike Russell says, unis aren't going to be interested in short courses, printed certificates from schools saying, "well done, you turned up to 10 hours of drama lessons". They'll want proper exams and I can't imagine any teacher wanting the prospect of three year groups fired into one class even if they are supposed to be teaching the same course. Its bad enough in a composite situation in primary and to me just looks like a convenient way to lose a few more teaching posts.
    Parents do need to be made more aware of this - they're the ones that can kick up a fuss. Unless they're in the Scottish Parent Teacher Forum, in which case they just are puppets for Mike Russell and parrot back anything he says.
     
  6. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    Outstanding post. I'd love to work there as all my career S2 has been a treading water year. I cannot believe HMIE criticism of this in S1/2 has led to an extension of this approach to S3!
     
  7. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    I occasionally think about the following - rigourous streaming and setting (most able pupils progress as fast as they need to), pupils of different ages sitting in the same class for some subjects.
    I have S2s who could easilly sit a SG in my subject and get a Credit. I have S4s who can barely master the spoken word let alone the written word. I have S3's who could already manage a 1 year Higher. I have Higher pupils crashing the subject not having done it since S2.
    Why did we ever need ACfE?
    Same courses, but flexibilty of learning to be found within timetabling/age and stage stuff. But of course it costs more to do this . . . . . .or does it?

     
  8. finnstark

    finnstark New commenter

    1+2+2+1. This system works well where I am. Pupils allowed time to change direction after sitting standards/intermeds at end of 3rd year if needed. Also not stuck in lessons not interested in for 3 years- only 1 year, or in classes that are not set. Does seem like another ruse to save pennies. 1+2+2+1 works well.
     
  9. Look out for Don Ledingham?s article in this week?s TESS. Ironically, he provides one of the best arguments yet for retaining the 2+2+2 model. He concludes with: ??curricular inertia is a powerful force and it will take continued commitment and courageous leadership from leaders at all levels in Scottish education if we are to see a curricular model that does not reflect what I experienced 40 years ago?. So that would be the 2+2+2 model that he experienced at school and which has ruined his life ? no, wait, he is Director of education and children?s services. He produces not one piece of evidence to back up his preferred 3+3 model, yet he wants ?courageous leadership? to bring it in. That?s the kind of leadership we do not need in a modern, open democratic Scotland.
     
  10. gnulinux

    gnulinux Occasional commenter

    Anybody like to share their experiences from the safe old model of 3 x 2 or from the brave new world of 2 x 3???
     
  11. jonowen

    jonowen Occasional commenter

    same old........good kids perform good; poorer kids perform poorer; average kids perform poorer.....average-good teacher (me [​IMG]) performing poorer due to stress, not knowing what to do for the best, more stress, wasting too much time stressing about this and more stress...............
    I don't think it makes much difference, the kids know their (future?) education is an unknown quantity and their teachers are suffering. The ones who say they are not bothered are either lying or really can't be bothered, so teach less.
     
  12. gnulinux

    gnulinux Occasional commenter

    1 year on ... Anybody like to share their experiences from the safe old model of 3 x 2 or from the brave new world of 2 x 3???
     
  13. halfajack

    halfajack Occasional commenter

    I actually really enjoyed working with colleagues to design and implement the new S3 'BGE' course, which we're using for the second year and enjoying teaching. Now that the full demands of N5 have (kind of) been revealed, we realise we really need to revise it to try and cut down on the burden of assessment in S4 and (my view only at the moment) will probably come up with something like a two year N5 course. The two year course for S Grade always felt far too long, especially for more able kids, but I think it's safe to say the requirements of N5 could far more reasonably be spread over two years, still maintaining an appropriate level of pace and challenge.
     
  14. I never found SG too long at all. A good teacher can stretch and challenge and supplement the course. I loved having time to go into detail and go off on tangents, especially with more able pupils whom I felt I was able to prepare really thoroughly for the exam. N5 is too assessment heavy and we are doing the same as you - looking at amending lower school courses (again) and feeding some N4/5 assessments in further down. It doesn't help that we're having to 'double bank' them all so they're all having to do AVU for N4 as well!

    As for 3+3. We have gone from being compulsory at SG to compulsory until end of S3. S3 is kind of aimless and pointless with a lot of pupils adopting the 'well I'm dropping this anyway' attitude. It is harder to counter with S3 pupils who are more hormonal. Very difficult to get them through assessments etc. it's going to be a hard sell moving the National assessments down into S3 if pupils don't want to study your subject.

    There are also issues with bi-level classes. On my view N4 is a one year course, N5 would be better over 2 years.
     
  15. inthered

    inthered Occasional commenter

    My nightmare is coming true - this year I have 4 behaviourally challenging N4 pupils in with a class of 25 N5 pupils. Bad enough - impossible to do bi-level teaching in CfE owing to differences in assessment standards, number of assessments and complete idiocy on the part of some of the N4s - now it turns out that the N4s, having 'passed', are expected to be part of an N5 class next year (immature S5s in with smart, hard working S4s, great) and in spite of having reached their learning ceiling somewhere in S1, by my estimation, I'm expected to get them through N5.

    Stuff this 3 + 3 - it doesn't work, apart from financially. I suppose that when they fail N5 next year they can come back into what will probably be a mixed S4/5/6 N5 class the following year, and spoil that for others too.
     

Share This Page