Do we need a Scottish Studies course?

What about that furore at Holyrood this week over whether we should have a Scottish Studies course? Why it was like when William Wallace led the Scots to victory at the Battle of Culloden in 1925.

You remember that famous conflict surely? It was chronicled by Sir Walter Scott in his best-selling book Miss Jean Brodie meets the Cone Gatherers, which I think was published sometime around 2001.

Preventing the above nonsense is of course what has been focusing the minds of the SNP this week as they launch plans for a Scottish Studies course in schools, something which has been met with Opposition opposition.

The SNP's belief is that young people are not currently exposed to enough Scottish history or literature whereas the opposition (notably Labour) claim it is a form of indoctrination and a distraction in an otherwise crowded curriculum.

On the face of it it's hard to argue with the idea of with a Scottish Studies course. Why should children not learn more about Scottish literature, history, etc to give them an understanding of their country?

It's misplaced to describe it as 'indoctrination'. Scottish heritage is no less valuable than other countries' and indeed Scottish Studies may serve to undermine misplaced nationalism by presenting a greater genuine understanding of Scotland.

Whilst this is fair enough there are still many unanswered questions. Firstly how do you fit an extra subject into what is already a very full curriculum? And secondly does this not utterly undermine recent changes to the education system?

Scottish primary pupils should concentrate on the basics and secondary pupils already study up to 16 subjects in their first two years; if a brand new course is to be introduced then something else has to go. What is that going to be?

It would be worrying if it was an established subject like history. Scottish history is important and usually already studied in primary and secondary schools. But other history is important too to develop a genuine world understanding.

If instead Scottish Studies is not to be a stand alone course but rather one that is weaved into current subjects then this is surely what is already supposed to be happening through the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)?

This is exactly why some teachers are often reluctant to fully embrace educational change - because they know another shift will be close behind. CfE is meant to achieve much of these outcomes yet already might be circumvented.

It's also not unreasonable to say there are other education matters which are a greater priority; not least the fact that in less than two years new qualifications will be introduced yet no-one knows what they will look like or how they'll be assessed.

The SNP will point to their manifesto and an opinion poll suggesting 90% support as reasons why Scottish Studies should be introduced. But it should only be done if it is a sensible course which fits with other subjects already taught.

If Scottish Studies enhances understanding of Scotland whilst also keeping an important world view then all well and good. But it should not just be about being seen to do something which doesn't add much except to appease SNP supporters.

And let's face it, the main person to oppose such misplaced actions would have been Ivanhoe's Captain Robert the Bruce.

Scottish Studies - The Great Battle of Newspapers

As an aside to the above post about Scottish Studies it's interesting to note how newspapers work and the (small p) politics involved in reporting.

The Scottish Studies story was run as an exclusive in The Herald and followed by several other newspapers, TV channels and radio stations.

However nowhere has any reference to it appeared in The Scotsman who are clearly angry that the exclusive interview went to their main rivals (an action which would surely have happened if the reverse were true too).

Isn't it nice to see that the media rises above the petty politics they usually decry our elected representatives for? No doubt they'll be telling tales of this famous battle in the course for years to come.

London's burning. Why? And why not Scotland?

Traditionally summer is known as the 'silly season' in the media world where a shortage of real stories due to holidays will lead to space being filled by nonsense.

It's fair to say this summer hasn't had that problem. Phone hacking, the tragic Norway killings and now riots across parts of England, most notably London.

Depending on which newspaper/blog/etc you read there are a million different reasons for this: it's the left's fault, it's the right's fault; it's because of policing which is too strong, it's because policing's not strong enough. And so on.

So what does in fact lie behind the riots? Well the fact that there are so many theories is one factor; in other words people looking for one simple 'this is to blame, this will stop it' idea will be disappointed.

Some people will have been making a political point about policing. Some will be reflecting a disengagement from society. Some will be making a statement against a consumerist society. And some will just be greedy bastards.

Another claim has been that it's due to the decline of 'traditional values' . People nodding at this notion might do well to read up on some basic history which chart riots or other social problems which have always affected Britain.

And in all of this it's worth asking why these riots have not made it to Scotland or even Wales for that matter given that both have near identical social and political experiences to England.

This is also something of a mystery. It could be that both want to show themselves as distinct from England. It could be that it just seems so far away and so little point in joining in.

Or it could, as in an interesting article by Torcuil Crichton be due to other factors e.g. the different design of Scotland's cities which tends to see poorer communities on the outskirts or a difference in the country's racial mix.

Again, as with identifying the causes of the riots, there will likely be more than one issue. And the real problem with fixing this will be if we expect to rely on politicians to fix a problem they ultimately did not create.

The fact these riots didn't spread to Scotland is a good thing. But it also doesn't do to introduce moral superiority over this, any more than it would be relevant to say all of Scotland is sectarian because of Old Firm problems last season.

Politicians can have a big influence on a country, that is fairly obvious. But given that politics is only one small aspect of life and we can choose our leaders (whether we participate or not) it's too simple to pass the blame to them.

If society is overly consumerist (and it surely is) it's not politicians which have forced us into this, it's everyone. As people have gained larger disposable incomes and used it on disposable items of course this affects our culture.

And our media culture foists upon children the idea of instant success for very little discernible talent. But who is it buys these publications, which helps spread this disease?

And if we believe that some other aspect of society (parenting, attitude to drugs, behaviour, etc) is out of sync with the mythical Britain which once existed, what role might society as a whole have had on that?

If this does mark the death of a Britain (or England) which once existed, even if only in people's minds, now would not be the time to jump to immediate reactions whilst people are (literally) mourning.

But sooner or later we will have to properly analyze why this might have happened. And for those on the left or right there may be uncomfortable truths that they have to live with. Whether they are prepared for this is another matter.

However it's also worth noting that these riots also should not turned into something they are not. Yes it was disgrace. Yes the culprits should be punished. But no this is not the end of our very existence.

We live in a country (the UK) of 60 million, even England has more than 50 million people. The fact that some people (including young people) rioted is a disgrace. But it doesn't mean that everyone did; quite the opposite in fact.

We should remember that most people - as with 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago - just lead decent, normal lives. Even those that do live in some of our poorest communities. This is especially true of young people.

As the clean ups continue we should look for solutions to try and stop it happening again. But please, no simple answers. And no imagining things are worse than they genuinely are.

Total Politics Blog Awards 2011

Some things are fixed each year; the leaves fall of the trees, Christmas comes,  there's not much sun and then it's back to mid-August and voting for the Total Politics Blog Awards.

Once again you can have your say about your top bloggers whether they are on Scottish politics or beyond. You get ten votes so can spread the love around.

There's been lots of changes to the blogging scene not just this year but in the three years since this blog started. A blog should follow on here about my choice for the top ten.

If you want to cast your votes go here.

Cash for Honours, phone hacking and political hypocrisy

If you believe the tone of Sunday political newspaper coverage today it seems that Alex Salmond personally nominated SNP donor Brian Souter for his knighthood.

Such a charge, if proven, would be sensational not least given the SNP's leading role in the Cash for Honours scandal which previously engulfed Westminster and the past Labour government.

The SNP's retort has been that whilst a nomination was made from the Scottish Government it came from civil servants and ministers had no idea. True or not there is little doubt that this looks very bad.

In politics perception is everything;. Had a nomination for a Labour donor come from civil servants under the Labour-led Scottish Executive can you imagine that the SNP would now be saying there was no story?

Of course not, indeed given the Cash for Honours story the police might even have been called. What it does highlight is a classic example of political hypocrisy which only serves to alienate the public from politics.

It's not even the first time this week the SNP have been stung in this way. During the height of the phone hacking scandal the First Minister condemned Labour and Tory ministers socialising with News International (NI) staff.

However the release earlier this week of Alex Salmond's diary and correspondence with News International staff showed that he had attended similar social events with them too. So why the outrage before?

There is little doubt that part of politics is about being a hypocrite and hoping that no-one notices. So demands for ministerial action which are rejected when in government are easily repeated when in Opposition.

The same goes for some of the murkier aspects of political life, including donations and dealing with the media. All sides do it and to imagine that they are substantially different in their approaches would be naive.

Yet we still must listen to cries of outrage from one side when the other mimics their behaviour. The SNP have been exposed in this but equally Labour are complaining, for instance, about meeting NI staff when they did the same!

The net result is surely that the public feel unsure about who or what they should trust. If it's wrong to take donations or liaise with the media then that's fine. But if they all do it then who do you vote for?

And the worst thing is that all is this fighting is ultimately meaningless, just a tit-for-tat approach. No-one's life will be made any better by this political bickering, simply more public respect and support lost from our democratic system.

Ultimately this will not stop. Labour are on the offensive now because previously the SNP attacked them for these actions. So this means that as soon as the SNP see a chance they will hit back with their own hypocrite jibes.

Addicts apparently cannot move on from destructive behaviour because whilst they know it's damaging they simply know of no other way to live. For some politicians it seems hypocrisy is the habit they can't break.

Are exams a waste of time?

Who'd be a school pupil? For years you're told that exams are the be all and end all to be focused on and that if you don't pass them you'll amount to nothing in life.

So what do they do? Well they study hard, sit the test that's put in front of them and pass. Are they met with congratulations? No, it's usually claims of dumbing down and how the exams are too easy.

The above scenario has in recent times become an annual event. Exam pass rates have been rising for the past few years and so people inevitably turn to the idea that they must be easier now than in the past.

The reality is more complicated. It may be that exams are easier although it could be argued that pupils undergo a much broader education now due to the changed employment scene from, say, 40 years ago.

There is also a much broader range of subjects and qualifications to take now. Pupils have the option of Access, Standard Grade (three levels), Intermediate 1, Intermediate 2, Higher, Advanced Higher and the new Baccalaureate.

What this means is that it can filter pupils into the level they are most likely to pass at e.g. why allow someone who probably won't pass at Higher to sit this when they can sit one level down and pass?

Ultimately we have to think about what we actually want exams for. Is it to try and distinguish one pupil from another when it comes to job and university applications? If so there are arguably other methods which should be considered too.

Or is it simply to show what particular skills a pupil has? e.g. an English pass at Higher obviously means they have a good grasp of writing, general literacy and analytical skills and so on for other subjects.

If it is for this purpose then should it matter if pass rates are improving? For instance imagine the outcry if the government said that it was going to fail more driving test candidates just so that too many didn't pass.

Equally we could apply this to other situations. Lawyers and accountants have exams to sit after they qualify; in future should we fail more of them just to make the test seem hard, even if they actually achieved the standards required?

This debate flags up one of the problems with the new Curriculum for Excellence which will only exacerbate claims of 'dumbing down' as pupils sit less exams, many of which will be set and marked in the pupil's school.

In reality for all the talk of a national debate and then a 'once in a lifetime' reformation of education that simply didn't happen. This means we have never really talked as a nation about what we want education or exams to achieve.

The job market 30 or 40 years ago was much simpler; firstly there were more jobs than now, many of which would be for life. And the basic skills they required from school were less; reasonably literacy and numeracy and a willingness to learn.

Things are very different now. People leaving school now will, on average, have many more jobs than their parents or grandparents did in their lifetimes. This means they need a flexibility within their learning.

In this regard exams can and should only be part of the picture. Whilst they are a barometer of pupils' progress (and an important one) they are also an artificial scenario which will almost never be repeated at work.

How many people go to their job, sit silently for two or three hours and write (not type)? Very few. Even less cannot ask someone else or look up an answer if they are unsure of something.

So perhaps we should consider changing our exam system but would the public ever accept this. The reality is that most people's opinions on education are shaped by their own experiences, good or bad.

But by all means we can shift back to the prior system where exams were a much substantial part of a final grade. And we can make them as difficult as possible, just to really separate pupils.

Bot one thing is clear, once we've decided what we want from our exam system we should stop telling pupils how important it is to pass and then berate them once they do.