In 2015 9,494 candidates sat SQA’s Higher Modern Studies exam, making it SQA’s 6th most popular Higher qualification. Modern Studies is fascinating, with relevant knowledge and skills for a wide range of university courses and occupations. Modern Studies began in the 1960s and in Scotland is very well recognised and respected as a qualification. Many of our MSPs reflect positively on how much they enjoyed Modern Studies at school. On a personal level, I’m delighted that 16-17 year olds in Scotland can vote. Thanks to Modern Studies teachers, many will be better informed about politics than their parents!
So, what of Higher Politics then? You may not even know there is a Higher in Politics. Well, there is and there has been in Scotland for around 20 years. In 2015, 679 candidates sat this qualification. I’d imagine that many young people applying for a university course in Law, Business or the Social Sciences would benefit from taking Higher Politics.
It is different from Modern Studies. Modern Studies is very of the moment. Candidates are expected to provide analysis, explanation and exemplification of recent social and political events. Modern Studies is multi-disciplinary, very successfully fusing political, sociological and economic concepts.
Higher Politics on the other hand has a strong philosophical content. Students can learn about socialist, conservative and liberal thinkers. Marx, Burke and Locke for example, comparing their ideas and their relevance to the modern day world of politics.
Higher Politics is also comparative. I personally choose comparing the USA and the UK’s political systems which I find students enjoy.
Higher Politics can also look at politics from a longer time frame. Why were all those teenagers dancing in George Square when Margaret Thatcher died? They weren’t alive when she was Prime Minister. Higher Politics can look at any political party and why it won elections. Could be any of the landmark moments such as Labour in ’45, Conservatives in ’79, New Labour in ’97 or the SNP in 2011/2015.
My company modernityscotland is an approved SQA provider of Higher Politics. It can enter candidates for the qualification in exactly the same way as a school or college can. The company passed a rigourous application process and has its internal standards verified by SQA as a matter of course.
I personally am a former SQA CFE Social Studies Development Consultant. I played a key role in developing the Higher Politics qualification and I can assure you that it is an enjoyable and rewarding course to take.
If you are a teacher you may like to consider introducing Higher Politics to your school/college curriculum 2016-17. Higher Politics complements Modern Studies, it is NOT a replacement for it. If you are applying to university in 2017 you may feel that a Higher in Politics would add value to your application.
Modernityscotland is a certified Education Scotland Professional Learning (PL) provider. I can come to your school/college and explain in a friendly, informed and focused way how to introduce Higher Politics. I can take you through teaching and learning resources and plans, unit assessments, the Assignment and preparing for the exam. The works.
Modernityscotland can also teach, assess and present candidates. If you are a parent of a 2017 university applicant or a young person interested in Higher Politics, get in touch and we’ll see what we can do.
Just letting you know my plans for Higher Politics in 2015-16.
Due to logistical issues around arrangements for the Assignment write up and the sitting of the Question Paper, it won’t be possible for Modernityscotland to present candidates this year. I’m looking into solutions for 2016-17.
The good news though is that if you are a school/college which is presenting your own Higher Politics candidates in 2015-16 and you’re looking for resources/curricular support, I’ve got a few things in mind.
There will be an online site for Higher Politics from August 2015 with access to PPTs, articles and videos related to the units and assessment requirements of Higher Politics.
The costs for a school will be the same as they are for Higher Modern Studies on www.modernity.scot
I’ll also be willing as part of the subscription to come into your school for a CPD session to talk you through the Units and devise a teaching/assessment plan appropriate for your teaching situation.
I’m more than happy to travel outwith the central belt and its only then I’d look for expenses.
Higher Politics is a very attractive and enjoyable course. It can add real value to your pupils in terms of knowledge, skills and that all important university application.
Give me a call on 07807 860762, email me at modernityscotland@btconnect.com or, even better, drop into McTaggart’s cafe for a coffee and a chat over the summer!
Political Theory, which looks at theories such as Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism
Political Systems, which takes a comparative approach to the study of government.
Political Parties and elections, which looks at the reasons why particular parties are successful in elections.
Students sit a 2 hours 15 minutes Question Paper on the knowledge and skills contained in these Units.
In common with the other SQA social studies qualifications, students are also required to research and write up an Assignment on a Political Issue.
In 2012, my company, modernityscotland, gained SQA approved status as a provider of Higher Politics.
This means that the company is authorised to teach, assess and present candidates in Higher Politics.
In 2012-13, we presented five candidates with pretty decent results.
The last two years I’ve taught Higher Politics at Glasgow Caledonian University, with much larger classes but again with good results.
This year I’ve tutored students online and I’m looking forward to seeing how they do when the SQA results come out in August.
This is the first year I’d be teaching the new, CFE Higher Politics (details above) and I’d be very enthusiastic about it.
I chaired the SQA Higher Politics Qualifications Design Team and Subject Working Group and was involved in many of the development tasks in writing the new Higher Politics Course.
So, I hope you could trust me in being knowledgeable about the qualification. My Linkedin profile is here.
In terms of taking things forward, I’m looking into an online course with some ‘facetime’ (sorry!) teaching too.
How much of that depends on uptake and geographical logistics.
All I’m looking for just now is indications of interest.
It can be from a school faculty, looking for an extra option for their students or individual parents/students looking for that extra qualification to support a university application.
I would plan to start in August with a regular online class booked in for one evening during the week.
It could be with modernityscotland doing the teaching, assessing and presenting or it could be in partnership with a school/college with modernityscotland doing the teaching and the school/college doing the quality assurance and presenting.
I’m working on the technology and there are practical issues such as a venue for Assignment ‘write up’ and the actual sitting of the Question Paper next Spring.
These can all be resolved if there is the demand and the will.
There are cost implications and again these will vary depending on numbers and support needs.
I would, however, be looking for ways to make Higher Politics inclusive for everyone who wished to study it, if it is humanly possible.
So, if you are interested in Higher Politics, with no commitment right now, you can email me at modernityscotland@btconnect.com
A pal of mine, who’s a Better Together supporter, contacted me the other week. ‘What’s happening where you are?’ he asked. ‘
I told him that in all honesty that I didn’t know. I could only go on a) the polls b) my family, friends, work colleagues and general chit chat in my wife’s cafe and c) what I read on my social media.
a) told me the same as my friend b) gave me about 50/50. The vast bulk of my friends are YES. I’ll leave my wife and family to speak for themselves but most of what I overhear in our cafe shows a mixed picture c) social media has some great stuff but some right heidbangers too.
So, who knows? What I do know is that I’ve never known anything like this in my life, outwith the 1984-85 miner’s strike. I know that Scottish society will never be the same again and Scottish politics, whatever the result will be completely changed.
I’m voting Yes. With no doubts and with a lot of hope that the majority of Scots vote the same.
I’m not trying to convince you if you’re undecided to do the same or to have a pop at you if you’re not. That old line about ‘some of my best friends are voting No’ is definitely true. Whoever wins, we’ll still play golf or go for a cycle, then put the world to rights together as always.
If this had happened 30 years ago I’d have been totally different. But Scotland was totally different 30 years ago. It just wouldn’t have happened. The time was not right.
In 1984 Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives had just found their mojo. Seeing off a desperate Argentinian dictator in the Falklands gave them the election win so unlikely a few months before. Now they were ready to take on the ‘enemy within’, the National Union of Miners, and were organised for it. They won again.
Scottish independence was pretty irrelevant to all this. In fact the SNP were a bit of a joke. The SNP were dubbed ‘tartan tories’. The party, in the central belt anyway, seemed to be comprised of strange old men in kilts with weird attitudes or no attitudes towards anything other than this mythical ‘independence’.
But change was happening. Scottish voting habits between Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979 and now have changed utterly. The Tories, once the most popular party in Scotland (in 1955) have just 1 MP now. The party which is the only one to have won over 50% of the vote in Scotland is lucky to get 15%. And that, arguably, is due to the AMS and STV voting systems, things the Tories have even now yet to admit they approve of. The SNP, not the Tories, Labour, is the most popular party in Scotland.
I still know my own scheme where I was brought up. A working class community which once comprised strong, hard working families has become the home of the 3rd generation unemployed. Instead of people enjoying the rewards of work, perhaps harbouring the hope of higher education for their kids, it now houses, among the terrified pensioners and decent people, the druggies and the alkies. Not just the long term unemployed but the unemployable. I know this sounds a cliché, especially to the middle classes who never knew these communities, but you could go out and leave your door unlocked. Kids were looked after by everyone in the scheme. Women, especially, took a pride in their ‘close’. Working class communities were good places to grow up.
Change probably had to happen. Globalism couldn’t be kept at bay. But the change could have been managed. Instead it was an excuse to atomise people. The resourceful escaped into the middle class. If you lived in a ‘good’ working class area you could buy your home. Then maybe sell it and move out to the burbs. If you think Scotland is Better Together walk the length of Kirkcaldy High Street. You might, if you’re imaginative enough, picture the ghosts of working people spending their wages and conceive of a town throbbing with people laughing and living. Go on Douglas Alexander, Alastair Darling, Ruth Davidson. I dare you. Not when you’re surrounded by your minders and fans. Do it on your own. You’ll see empty buildings. Charity shops. 99p shops. There’s any number of beggars and roaming, crazy people eyeing you up. And that’s during the day. Life expectancies lower than war zones in the middle east. You won’t hang about long. Better Together? Better than what exactly?
Its the legacy of Thatcherism that has driven the Scottish people to independence. Thatcherism was great for the winners but grim for the losers. Thatcherism was rejected by the vast majority of Scots but we had to put up with it then and we deal with it now.
I can understand why the Tories are against independence. They opposed the Scottish parliament and there is a logic in their British nationalism. Ironically it could be said that the Scottish Tories have fared better than Scottish Labour in the referendum. They have a strong leader who at least believes in what she says. Has the Scottish Labour leader played any part in this campaign? While the Tories normally poll 10-13% in Scottish elections, their vote suffers from the First Past the Post system we have in UK elections and part of the Scottish parliament elections. Is there really any point in getting off your backside and voting Tory in most Scottish seats? I’ll bet there’s quite a few Tories in East Renfrewshire who find Labour’s Jim Murphy perfectly acceptable. Given the chance in this referendum they can come out supporting traditional Tory values without having to nail their colours to the still toxic Tory mast. I suspect the real Tory support in Scotland is a fair bit higher than it normally is in elections.
So, to ‘the math’. David Cameron thought he had the referendum in the bag. It would be a skoosh (though I somehow doubt he and George Osborne referred to it in those terms!) So, no devo max on the ballot paper. A straight yes or no and put this Salmond guy to the sword. Better Together have the Tory vote in the bag. Scottish Labour was telt to deliver the Scottish Labour vote. The SNP might get their 3o odd per cent, a few Greens, some Trots and the odd disaffected Labour but that would be it. Game over and back to normal business. The Scottish Liberal Democrats. Did I forget about them?
But it just hasn’t worked out that way. Better Together kicked off first with the line that Scotland is just too wee and insignificant to be independent. Only ‘big’ nations can be prosperous enough to be independent. The oil’s nearly all gone as well. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And by the way, we’re Better Together. You can be Scottish and British. Doesn’t make you a bad person. Some of the smarter ones said, ‘of course Scotland could be independent but why would you want to be?’
Yes Scotland couldn’t win the air war. Only the Sunday Herald backed independence. And their readers are all trendy lefties who ‘ll vote Yes anyway. Better Together could rely on most of the papers that have any decent readership in Scotland; The Record, The Mail, the Express, The Scotsman and the churnalism of the freebies. The Scottish Sun was different. Murdoch doesn’t like Cameron any more and he quite likes Salmond, so it seems. But social media is a whole new ball game. No one yet knows the power of 3rd party referrals and virals in Facebook and social media. Yes Scotland can win the ground war; on the streets, in the schemes and the high streets. Yes Scotland has more activists. While the polls may well be inaccurate, they consistently show a demographic that it is the old and the comfortable who do not want change. The poorer you are and the younger you are the less you fear it. So Project Fear truly kicked in. We love you (honest) but you can’t leave us. Its our pound, not yours. We’ll get businesses to say we’ll leave the country. We’ll get supermarkets to say your prices will go up. Banks to say your mortgages will go up. Who cares how we win this. Winning ugly will do. Just scare enough of them.
I’m not saying Yes Scotland have fought a flawless campaign. I could go on about the White Paper. Alex Salmond did walk into an elephant trap in the first currency debate. But one by one the scare stories of Better Together have been rebutted. So Scotland can’t use the pound? There’s impartial economists who’ll tell you that is total bluff. The Tories put the banks and Asda up to their scare stories about moving and putting up prices. Douglas Alexander can go auto pilot on ‘risk and consequences of independence’ yet is anyone daft enough to think that there are no risks and consequences in voting No? That mortgages and prices won’t ever go up? That the UK wide referendum to leave the EU might go a way Scottish voters don’t want? That the powers promised to Scotland might just never materialise if Better Together get their win?
That Scotland might actually flourish under independence? For every doom merchant there’s plenty of economists saying there’s generations of oil left. Even without oil, Scotland is rich in renewable energies. We have established education and legal professions. We have an intelligent workforce. We have plenty of social problems, the legacy of Thatcherism to sort out but we will have the democratic mechanism, the will of the Scottish people to tackle these head on. No more un-elected peers in the House of Lords, on £300 a day to sign in and out running the country. You may not get the government you want but it will be our government. Like most MSPs, people from our communities, accountable on a daily basis for the decisions they make, not coming back at the weekends and hiding behind their safe opposition seats with most of the real work done by the MSPs.
Above all, for me, we might see an end to the Scottish cringe. That it’s always someone else’s responsibility. I’m not good enough. I know my place. I kent yer faither.
I’m not a ‘nationalist’. And the last thing I am is anti-English or anyone because of their national/ethnic origin. I’m a democrat. I don’t believe in ‘separation’. An independent Scotland, despite the bluster from Better Together, will, because sheer economic and political interests dictates that there will be a new, better union with the rest of the UK and with other nations in the world. Scotland is a rich country. It is just ridiculous to suggest that we could not be a prosperous nation. And people abroad love us! Scotland the brand is just an incredible selling point.
Labour in Scotland should be seizing this opportunity with both hands to set an example for the rest of the UK in how a just and equitable country goes about its business. But No. They confuse the means with the end. Labour has become an end in itself. And to maintain Labour as a going concern, the promise of a more equitable Scotland is to be sacrificed?
Well, a couple of days before we go to the polls the Scottish people have not buckled under the most incredible misinformation and propaganda. I’ve been amazed and heartened at discovering so many people who have thrown off the shackles of party tribalism to vote Yes and elect a new Scotland. There’s no reason why it can’t be a prosperous one. And unless the voting patterns of the last 30 years are reversed we will elect the government to make it a fairer one too.
Just completed putting together a National 5 Question Paper.
You’ll notice that I’m officially calling it a ‘Question Paper’ rather than a ‘Prelim’.
It may well be used as a Prelim for very good educational reasons but one of the old jobs of old school Prelims was to generate evidence for subsequent SQA appeals.
These kind of appeals won’t exist for the new Nationals so that’s not why you’ll use this Question Paper/Prelim, whatever you want to call it.
I hope that this Question Paper will provide the learner with a valuable experience in coping with a time limited exam and will also provide teachers with the opportunity to provide the learner (and also parents/carers) with valuable feedback in order to raise attainment.
National 5 is a new exam and there are new Marking Instructions. Before marking the Question Paper, it is perhaps a good idea to re-familiarise yourself with both
The SQA Modern Studies National 5 Unit Assessment support documents which are on the secure SQA CFE Modern Studies pages. These re-affirm that learners can meet the national standard for National 5 in a range of ways, apart from the traditional written ‘Nab’ or written question response. The National 5 Unit Assessment support documents also provide outlines on making assessment judgements.
The SQA Modern Studies National 5 specimen marking Instructions.
As we are all new to marking at National 5, please remember that a pass mark at National 5 is equivalent to a Standard Grade Credit 2 and an Intermediate 2 ‘C pass’. If you have experience of marking at either or both of these levels you are more likely to be ‘in the zone’ for marking at National 5. The SQA national standard for National 5 will not be any easier or tougher than the previous national standard for SCQF 5 (which the previous qualifications were benchmarked at and which National 5 is too).
So, the main value in using this ‘Prelim’ Question Paper is as a learning resource, rather than as a means of generating appeal evidence.
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the Question Paper is just one of two Components of National 5 Modern Studies Course assessment and is worth 75% of a learner’s overall grade. The other Component, the National 5 Modern Studies Assignment, is worth 25% of the overall award. The final grade for any learner is determined on the basis of the total mark for the two Course assessments combined.
This National 5 Modern Studies Question Paper samples both knowledge and understanding and skills from across all three Units of the National 5 Modern Studies Course.
Any queries, get back to me.
The National 5 Question Paper costs £35 incl of p&p. It is available from Modernityscotland, 3 Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour KY3 0UP or from Kelvin books.
I’m doing a talk tonight on education inequalities at this year’s Aberdour Festival.
In Modern Studies we spend a fair amount of time analysing health inequalities and little on education inequalities.
I guess you won’t get an exam question on education inequalities.
And the topic is very close to home.
Still, the evidence is out there and its stark.
So, I was delighted (and surprised!) when the festival organisers asked me do a talk.
I plan to look at the evidence, suggest reasons for the inequalities and then, lastly, some solutions.
This post, therefore is part one and I’ll deal with the other aspects in the next two posts.
I’ll post these as soon as I can but, in a totally unrelated matter, I hit the 50 on Saturday and there might be some birthday shenanigans which hold me up, so please cut me a bit of slack 🙂
There is of course an irony that this talk on educational inequalities is taking place in Aberdour, perhaps one of the most middle class villages in the world, if not Scotland!
I’ll take a guess and say that the attendees will all be holders of degrees, have nice houses and will all (quite rightly) enjoy the wine and nibbles they get for their fiver.
Yes, you read that right, a fiver to listen to me! 🙂
The other irony is that this talk is taking place in my wife’s new trendy café-deli.
So here you have this boy from Govan pontificating about how the working classes are getting a raw deal in front of all these well heeled people!
Well, I do come from Govan, not a lot I can do about that.
We did actually have an outside toilet up till I was three and I’m very proud of my working class roots.
I now don’t have any problem at all being middle class (I did once, but that’s another story).
I like the local golf club. We’ve got a nice house, two decent cars and while we don’t get away the holidays we’d like, we do alright.
When you reach 50 you have the brains to realise that health and happiness are more important than money.
But money’s still important!
I just wish everyone could be well off and I don’t think its my fault they’re not.
I think the educational inequalities we have in Scotland and the UK are an absolute scandal and both the UK and Scottish Governments should be tackling these as a major priority.
I don’t think the UK Government will, in fact, I believe the policies of Mr Gove will widen the inequalities.
Scotland, with the Curriculum for Excellence (CFE), is going in the opposite, and I believe better direction.
Will CFE create more equality of opportunity?
Perhaps.
But not on its own, reasons why I’ll touch on in a follow up post.
So, what evidence is there of educational inequality?
All this evidence shows that, surprise, surprise, kids from poorer backgrounds do worse at school than better off ones.
But, is Scotland not supposed to be a meritocratic country?
Our education system, free at the point of use, has, historically, had a reputation for offering everyone the chance to climb higher in society.
Some of the data in the above research covers schools in other parts of the UK but it is patently clear that there is no such thing as equal opportunity in Scottish schools and I suspect there never was.
And it is no ‘postcode lottery’
Far from it.
Your postcode in a lot of cases does impact on how well you’re likely to do at school.
But this postcode is not the result of some lucky draw but the social/economic and educational status of your parents.
The OECD report, which otherwise paints a pretty positive picture of Scottish schools, highlights the inequalities within the Scottish state sector.
We all know the inequalities between the independent sector and state schools.
Frankly, if I was paying £10k plus a year (in addition to my taxes) for my son’s education I’d be wanting some results too!
But Scotland is a small country.
How can it be that children from one school are allowed to do so badly compared to children from a school just along the road.
I know all the deficiencies of the school ‘league tables’ and how they don’t show the great work and great teaching which often goes on in lower attaining schools.
I also know of the amount of tutoring which goes on in ‘high attaining’ schools which also skews the figures.
Nevertheless, qualifications change lives.
SQA Higher results get young people into university which in many cases is the life-changing experience.
If you don’t get the Highers, unless you can get good vocational training, you can have a long life ahead of you of minimum wage jobs and/or benefits.
Here’s just one example of two families, A and B, who would both like their daughter to be a lawyer.
To get into a law degree in a Scottish university you’ll need 5 good Highers and other evidence of achievement such as Duke of Edinburgh, debating, volunteering etc.
Family A lives in local authority A in a 3 bedroom home worth £65,000.
The nearest school is school A.
At school A, just 5% of pupils get the minimum 5 Highers required for law.
(That’s 5 Highers, A-C, you’d need at least 4 As for law so the figure for those achieving 4 As and a B is much lower).
Now, Kid A may well get those 5 Highers, through brains, hard work, great teaching and parental support.
The stats ain’t good though.
Family B lives 3.5 miles away in Local Authority B in a 3 bedroom home worth £199,000
The nearest school is school B.
At school B, 45% of pupils get the minimum 5 Highers required for law.
Quite a difference!
Family A may well know that this inequality is out there.
So, if they were empowered enough they’d consider sending a placing request to enable Kid A to attend School B.
They might be lucky.
It might also be a case of ‘join the queue’.
They may then consider moving to Local Authority B.
But the house prices in Local Authority B reflect the school life of School B.
They’ll need to find £130k from somewhere.
Or they could go private.
School C, an independent school is 2.9 miles away.
School C costs in the region of £10,000 a year plus other expenses.
Still, sending Kid A and her younger brother to school C would end up £30k cheaper than buying a house in Local authority B.
I know several teaching friends of mine who loathe the private sector.
They’d never send their children private for all sorts of reasons, some of which are because they believe the private schools take high achieving pupils away from the state schools (which they probably do).
But they live in nice areas and send their children to high achieving state schools.
And they are teachers too which makes a heck of a difference to a child’s education.
Not just at home but pushing the buttons at school too.
Family A may not be teachers and they may never have gone to university but they want their daughter to do better than in life than they did.
The Scottish system, statistically, seems to put barriers in their way.
The story so far seems to be, despite Scottish education’s reputation for meritocracy and social mobility, you get what you pay for.
You either pay the private school burser or you pay the mortgage (and the tutors).
The choice is yours.
And you’re the lucky one who has the choice.
Many parents may not be aware of these inequalities at all or have the confidence/purchasing power to do anything about it.
A very small minority of Scottish pupils go to independent schools (between 4-5%) and in rural Scotland the picture is very different.
But in the central belt, where most Scots live, inequalities are a fact of life.
The ‘new’ Modernityscotland site will be launched on Monday June 3.
The current site which you know and hopefully like will continue for the time being but I’m hoping that in time you’ll see the merits of switching over.
So, why the ‘new’ site?
Firstly, the new site will, for the first time, have Higher Politics content.
Modernityscotland is an SQA Approved Centre for Higher Politics.
This year I’ve been teaching, assessing Higher Politics candidates and doing all the admin associated with being my own SQA co-ordinator.
I’ve developed a lot of resources so if you plan on teaching Higher Politics and you’d like the resources (articles and powerpoints) the content will be available for the return to schools/colleges in August.
Secondly, the world of IT, especially social media, moves on.
The new site can be accessed much better on a variety of devices; mobiles, tablets etc as well as old fashioned computers!
This will lead to a better experience for the most important people, the (mostly) young people who access Modernityscotland.
Articles will also now be interactive.
Learners can comment on articles, I’ll even contribute myself.
This hopefully will lead to improved levels of understanding, even enjoyment 🙂 of Modern Studies/Politics.
The key to this is that in the new site learners will no longer use the school/college log in but will have their own personal one.
This new responsibility fits in with the overall ethos of CFE and also seems to be the kind of interactivity young people enjoy on a variety of online platforms.
Any inappropriate posts (and the decision is mine) will result in membership being withdrawn.
By inappropriate, I mean sexist/racist/homophobic/abusive nonsense and/or use of swear words.
All posts are moderated before publication but the time lag should be never more than one day.
This is to ensure that there is no cyber bullying of any kind and the site is used for the purpose for which it was created; to help the learner in Higher Modern Studies/Politics.
Please be reassured that all genuine comments/queries will be posted.
While these features will be active on the new site from June 3 I’ll be working away over the summer on some other exciting features the new site offers to offer Modern Studies learners the best possible online learning.
The teacher powerpoints will also be available in a Prezi format for those of you who prefer your slides this way.
I hope you’ll agree that this represents good value for money in these budget squeezed times.
The new pricing structure is as follows;
30 + candidates £200 subscription (plus updated power points)
21-30 candidates £180 (plus updated power points)
11-20 candidates £140 (plus updated power points)
1-10 candidates £100 (plus updated power points) There can now be individual student memberships at £20 each.
In terms of discount;
If a school/college subscribes and buys the books (more than 10) direct from Modernityscotland there will be 1/3 off the cover price.
So that’s £9 per book for the two in the N4/N5 series; Social Issues and Democracy in Scotland & UK.
Sorry, but I can’t do anything about discounts if you buy from Browns or Kelvin or some other 3rd party.
I hope you like these new plans and will continue to support Modernityscotland in 2013-14.
Any queries, post a comment or contact me on 01383 861022/07807 860762 or email modernityscotland@btconect.com
Lastly, I’ll have a fantastic event to share with you on the new site on Monday June 3!
If you’d like to know in advance, follow Modernityscotland on Facebook and/or Twitter
As a matter of principle I have never commented on any of Modernityscotland’s rival publications.
Even the most experienced Modern Studies teacher would find it difficult to avoid bias, exaggeration, selectivity in the use of facts or drawing conclusions about a product which could impact on one’s livelihood!
But, this time I’ve made a decision to make a comment.
You may have received a free copy of Hodder Gibson’s Democracy in Scotland and the UK textbook, accompanied by a seductive flyer!
The flyer makes in clear in bold that this ‘guide’ has been endorsed by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA).
The book or ‘guide’ itself has a label ‘SQA Endorsed’ on the front cover.
SQA Endorsement is a biggie for any book and especially one whose material focuses on a new SQA qualification.
I’ll be honest, I’d love it if SQA would endorse one of my titles!
If a book is endorsed by SQA then it must surely be better than one that is not?
That partly depends on what SQA is actually endorsing.
A read of the inside cover of Hodder’s book is of interest.
I quote (italics all mine)
“This material has been endorsed by SQA and offers support for SQA qualifications. SQA endorsement does not mean that this material is essential to achieve any SQA qualification, nor does it mean that this is the only suitable material available to support any SQA qualification. No endorsed material will be used verbatim in setting any SQA examination and any resource lists produced by SQA shall include this and other appropriate texts. While this material has been through an SQA quality assurance process, all responsibility for the content remains with the publisher. Specifically, although SQA endorses this title as being written for, and appropriate to, the relevant syllabus requirements, SQA is not responsible for any content omissions or inaccuracies.”
So, this particular title is not essential and it is not the only suitable material.
Phew!
The material has ‘been through an SQA quality assurance process’ and (SQA) ‘is not responsible for any content omissions or inaccuracies’.
I’m not entirely clear what the nature of quality assurance process has been.
Hodder Gibson seems to be responsible for the content, which is what I’d imagine Modern Studies people buy the book for.
SQA has brought out its own Modern Studies support materials which I can heartily recommend.
I’m trying to find out if there are any financial arrangements relating to SQA endorsement of Hodder Gibson’s CFE series.
There may well be none for all I know.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not criticising SQA’s practice of signing deals with large commercial organisations (Hodder Gibson is the Scottish arm of Hodder Education, which, in turn, is an ‘imprint’ of Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. Hodder & Stoughton is a major publisher within Hachette UK, ‘one of the UK’s biggest publishing groups’. Hatchette UK is owned by Hachette Livre, ‘the world’s second largest trade and educational publisher’.)
SQA is a public body.
It has to get the best deal for the public purse and working in partnership with a large commercial organisation is a revenue stream SQA has to consider.
Ultimately, the choice of what book to buy is yours.
I’ve been competing with Hodder Gibson and other publishers for six years now but competing with SQA endorsed products will undoubtedly be tough.
The Modern Studies Association (MSA) conference on Saturday was another highly enjoyable event.
Hats off to the conference organisers for getting along some great speakers.
And for those brilliant bags!
I made it along to Patrick Carson (S1-S3) and Alan Barclay (SQA new CFE Qualifications) and thought they both were excellent.
My talk on the Scottish dimension was a brief one!
I was very conscious I only had 45 minutes and all I really intended to do was to flag up an important new document and some new emphases which Educationscotland seem to making.
I also thought that teachers had copies of my slides (I could have asked, duh!).
So, my plan was to highlight these things and hand you over to Andy Kerr, former Scottish health minister, whose talk hit on several relevant issues for Modern Studies teachers.
Knowing that Andy likes a Q&A, 1/2 an hour to do the talk and the Q&A would be cutting it fine.
I thought Andy was great.
This is not because I am, according to Alex Neil MSP, “one of the North Lanarkshire Labour mafia.”
(Chance would be a fine thing! Sadly you’re much more likely to find me at the drive-through of the M8 Coatbridge McDonalds than the Bellshill equivalent of the Bada Bing.
And taking on the SNP in the badlands of Airdrie to the soundtrack of Tony Bennet sounds a heck of a lot more exciting than writing Standard Grade papers in sleepy old Aberdour!)
Just because he’s an experienced former MSP and Government Minister who knows his way around Modern Studies and, as a speaker, can deliver what his audience wants.
I also think he’s the best Scottish leader Labour never had, but that’s another point.
I don’t think Dr Stuart Waiton would agree with me though.
Dr Stuart Waiton was on first at the MSA conference.
He has recently written a book entitled “Snob’s Law” relating in particular to the Scottish Government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Online Communications Act.
Stuart’s theme here and on other social issues is that the state is regulating individuals’ lives too much; that it should step back and allow individuals to decide for themselves the choices they make.
This could be on sectarianism at football, but also child protection, drink driving, and early interventionist health policies, including smoking (more later).
From a Modern Studies point of view, it’s good to have the old individualist v collectivist debate back!
The last few years have seen all the major parties occupy the centre ground.
While there are, of course, major policy differences, more so in Scotland than elsewhere, on UK social issues, there is a fair consensus that it is government’s role to help individuals to help themselves.
Tony Blair’s, famous phrase, borrowed from Bill Clinton, “a hand up, not a hand out”.
The classic Thatcherite response that it is “poor” individual choices not the external environment which explains social problems seems pretty out of date now.
Given the acclaimed health improvements of the ban on smoking in public places, and the work of Sir Harry Burns on health inequalities, those who argue that the state should leave people to their own devices seem so out of time.
Well, maybe if they look and sound like Norman Tebbit or Edwina Currie.
But maybe not if their arguments are cross-dressed up as those from The Left?
Put across at a teachers’ conference by a sociology lecturer from a new university?
Stuart Waiton, who as far as I recall wasn’t that keen on questions towards himself at the MSA conference was very enthusiastic about putting questions to Andy.
Andy, if you’ll remember, as Health Minister, was the driving force behind Scotland’s historic ban on smoking in public places.
Stuart entered the debate twice, on each occasion his point was that Labour had retreated from its socialist traditions to transform society and was now content merely to micro-manage poor people’s lives.
He criticised the SNP Scottish Government’s early interventionist approach too.
The message being that government is bad, it should back off and allow people to make their own choices (even if these choices have negative impacts on their health and wellbeing).
In an appropriately individualist way, I’ll leave you to make your own minds up about whose approach is most successful!
I was intrigued by Stuart’s point.
The normal criticism from The Left is that government isn’t doing enough!
The rich are getting away with it, services are being cut, we need to do more to help those at the sharp end etc.
If Andy was to get a bit of stick, this is what I’d have expected.
Myself and Alan Britton had a conference debrief at the wonderful Café Zique on Hyndland Street, Glasgow (well worth the short journey from Hamilton).
We had a speculative chat about where Stuart was coming from, in an ideological sense.
And we got all nostalgic thinking about how some of his ideas (or at least the underpinning thrust of them) seemed to echo the line taken by the old Revolutionary Communist Party from the 80s!
In those days when we were all really Left wing, the RCP was the Leftest of them all!
You name the cause; the miners’ strike, nuclear disarmament, Ireland, health issues, the RCP would seem to scour all the Left wing approaches and come up with the most Leftist line imaginable.
Perhaps the most bonkers was the argument that AIDS was just a moral panic invented by the ruling class to restore Victorian values.
Our duty, therefore, as empowered citizens was to avoid condom usage and to go on the pill.
An option not open to me which I pointed out to one of them once.
In reality, their views, remarkably, seemed to bear much in common with those of the libertarian Right.
The language was very different, of course, but they wanted the same things to happen; the state to stop “meddling” and to allow individuals to make their own choices.
In the 90s the RCP dropped the name and evolved into a coalition of thinkers grouped around an academic magazine “Living Marxism”.
These days the spirit lives on in a blog, “Spiked Online”.
Its most well-known theoreticians are academic Frank Furedi and journalists Mick Hume and Brendan O’Neill.
It has links to a think-tank called “The Institute of Ideas” which has an annual conference, “The Battle of Ideas”.
SpikedOnline likes Stuart’s work (that was the link earlier), Spike’s Kevin Rooney says “Snob’s Law” is brilliant.
Big deal you may say, Stuart also spoke at the MSA.
But Stuart is also a contributor to a blog called The Free Society.
The Free Society seems to be a “broad church”.
A fellow contributor I recognised was former Conservative MSP Brian Monteith.
What was most interesting was who is behind The Free Society.
None other than the tobacco pressure group FOREST!
So, at the MSA conference on Saturday we had an academic criticising the health policies of a former Scottish health minister, the guy who brought in the smoking ban.
This academic ostensibly criticised the Health Minister from the Left, criticising Labour’s unwillingness to tackle poverty.
What he didn’t tell us, perhaps due to pressures of time, was that he also contributes regularly to a blog launched by the smokers’ lobby group FOREST!
See Page 6 of this document for information about tobacco companies’ backing of FOREST.
Now, I’m not remotely suggesting that Dr Waiton benefits directly or indirectly from the relationship between The Free Society, FOREST and tobacco companies, or even that his views are influenced by this association.
However the wider intellectual and ideological connections thrown up by this brief examination are worth exploring from a Modern Studies point of view, when we look how pressure groups work in modern society.
FOREST as a group have resigned themselves to the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces.
But it is actively campaigning against plain packaging proposals which have been considered by the Scottish Government.
FOREST claims that plain packaging makes no difference to whether people buy cigarettes which makes one wonder why it spends so much time and effort campaigning against the proposal!
As a self-proclaimed supporter of Government intervention, I’ll point you to some academic work by Sir Harry Burns.
Perhaps because of Government action in developed nations, people in developing nations have much more “freedom” to smoke than we do.
It’s important for the MSA, and the Modern Studies community more generally, to give space to a broad range of views, including those that might be regarded as provocative and contrarian.
However it’s also a vital aspect of the subject that we examine closely the intellectual and ideological provenance of those views.
Some of us believe that the political spectrum is linear, from Left to Right.
It may be the case that it is circular; that you can go so far to the Left that you end up being on the Right!
modernityscotland 