Talk:Education in Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Education in Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Needs references, per WP:CITE. |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
|
This article is supported by the Education WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Education-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|||
| Portal | |||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Needs references, per WP:CITE. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Suggested minor change to Intro
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.
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)
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] School Years Table
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
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
