"Weasel" Russell - some thoughts and a new prediction

Looks like my attempt at edgy humour fell flat. Clearly the readership of this blog is more refined than that of ARRSE (which is where I nicked it from)...

This may be my last post for a while since we are off to our usual bolt-hole in the Cotswolds. There has never been any internet coverage there, although BT are now claiming that their FON shared-hotspot thing should be in range. We'll see.

A while back I looked at the readership stats for this blog, for the first time in ages. There was a bit of a surprise; one page in particular was generating a truly massive spike on the hits chart.

Which one was it, I wondered? One for which I'd spent time developing a detailed argument, or doing lots of research, or generating some nifty charts?

No. It was this one, in which I pointed out the uncanny similarity between Michael "Mike" "Weasel" Russell and a, er, weasel.

Shall we do it again?

Michael "Mike" "Weasel" Russell

A weasel

So why was this so popular? Did someone in the Holyrood bubble pick it up and pass it round? We'll never know.

I've already predicted that "Weasel" is going to have a tough time dealing with the totally ridiculous and unsustainable position he has been left in on university funding. His refusal to contemplate any form of graduate contribution is going to leave Scottish universities with an ever-increasing funding gap relative to their English counterparts, and will have them sliding further and further down the global ratings tables into Euro-mediocrity.

Here's another prediction of an unpleasant and potentially disastrous situation which is about the greet "Weasel": the public realisation of the implications of "Curriculum for Excellence" in our secondary schools. This should hit by Christmas.

(At this point I should declare my involvement / interest. Over the years I have dropped various hints that I've been doing a bit of a career-change thing; this is now complete. I am now a teacher. No, you don't need to know where or which subject!)

Now, the development of "Curriculum for Excellence" (politely shortened to "CfE", or less politely to "Curriculum for Sixty Pence" or "Curriculum for Excrement") has been under way for a while - it goes back to before the Nats' win in 2007. The cohort which started S1 last August are the first to experience it at secondary level.

A lot of CfE looks attractive. More flexible - OK. More engaging - fine. More cross-curricular working across subjects - good. Less formal assessment by examination and more assessment which encourages initiative and creativity - hmm, OK as long as that is crisped up as they get older and approach the inevitability of real exams.

But what is going to cause the rammy is what happens when the kids get to what is now called "the senior phase" and have to start getting qualifications.

Up to now, there has been a pleasing convergence of the qualifications system across the UK. In Scotland, they do 8 or so Standard Grades at 16, 5 Highers at 17 and 3 Advanced Highers at 18. Down south, it's 8 or so GCSE's at 16, 5 AS-levels at 17 and 3 A2-levels at 18. England used to go straight from GCSE to 3 A-levels; the broadening of their curriculum at 17 is, arguably, an endorsement of the historic Scottish approach. It's also the case that the Scottish AH is graded higher (i.e. more UCAS points) by universities than the A-level.

(Admittedly, we have complicated the situation up here with our Intermediate 1s (which sit just below Standard Grade) and Intermediate 2s (which are just above it). In most mainstream state schools, Int 1s are for 16-year olds who couldn't manage S-grade, and Int 2s are for 17-year olds who couldn't manage Higher. But a lot of private schools avoid S-grades and do Int 2s at 16 instead. And there are all sorts of other permutations in the state sector. This is all very flexible for those in the education business, but costs - and is confusing for the outside world.)

CfE is going to change all this. Standard Grade, Int 1 and Int 2 are going to be swept away and replaced by Nationals 4 and 5. So far, so simplified, so good. (Although there are concerns about the fact that the lower-level National 4 will only be assessed internally by schools. Shades of a return to the 1950s, maybe.)

But here comes the kicker. Under the new system, our kids are only going to be taking qualifications in 5 or 6 subjects at 16 - rather than 8 as at present. The brighter ones are likely to be going to start Highers over 2 years from 16, with no dry-run or safety net at 16.

The curricular authorities are at pains to say that they are not forcing this to happen, but it looks in practice that that is exactly what most schools are planning to do.

This is going to cause uproar. Parents who are used to and proud of having 8 S-grades or O-grades are NOT going to accept automatically the idea that their offspring are only going to have 5 or 6 quals at 16 - or possibly none until 17, with no apparent safety net. Particularly in places like Edinburgh, where I know for a fact that the private schools (25% of the system) are looking on this aspect of CfE with utter horror and may well switch over to the IGCSE for their age-16 qualification.

NB I am not saying that the new CfE approach is a bad thing. At this stage of my educational career, I don't know enough to give an opinion. What I am saying is that there is going to be an almighty row.

This can't all be blamed on the SNP. What has happened is that the left-of-centre, consensual, "distinctively" Scottish educational establishment has kept a lot of this to itself and is going to be seen as springing this on the public when it's too late to make any changes.

However, the "Weasel" is going to end up wearing this mess on his face and I can't say I'm sorry.