National 4/5 Practical Woodworking

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition National 4/5 Practical Woodworking.


Guest

#1

2016-02-05 13:54

Imperative changes are made. Pupils disengaged with projects and the waste in material is disgusting and untenable with current budget restrictions.

Guest

#2

2016-02-05 14:36

Because I feel that there are too many mistakes in the projects and costs for materials are on the increase every year. SQA need to be more flexible and provided skills are maintained any deviations should not affect assessment results.

Guest

#3

2016-02-05 16:06

The current PW course is not fit for purpose. The SQA have taken an excellent course, being Intermediate 2, and from that created an awful one. There are mistakes throughout the coursework drawings, the pupils are utterly disinterested in the coursework models, the waste involved in all the models is terrible and expensive and to top it all off, the course assessment drawings are riddled with mistakes in both jointing methods and practical application of the models working. This means pupils are being awarded a national qualification based upon work that is incorrect. This is clearly unacceptable for our pupils, teachers' professional pride and the future of the subject. At a time where developing our young workforce is so important we should be promoting this subject's standing, not having to fight the SQA for quality work which is available in abundance across the country in schools.

Guest

#4

2016-02-05 18:26

Petitioner has raised very valid points that should be addressed.

Guest

#5 Re:

2016-02-05 19:36

#3: -  

 As a teacher of 30 years experience I can see the skills diminishing by the hour.  When i were a lad, i went to Reid Kerr college (Paisley FE ) for practical skills as part of my engineering degree.  Above the door to all the craft workshops stood a sign " let no man enter here who would deny craftsmanship" that stuck with me.  I absolutly did my best and put my best into every single project so I could show it off with pride" i made this" .  The bureaucracy has killed off pride and replaced it with "evidence".We are craftsmen not policemen.  TAKE A PRIDE IN YOUR WORK. let the pupils have a pride in their work ,do not hide it in cupboards.


Guest

#6

2016-02-05 19:56

The course is disgracefully managed and poorly developed course projects that don't inspire pupils and show a lack of understanding on how to inspire and motivate the crafts people of the future.

Guest

#7

2016-02-05 21:14

I am a science teacher, CfE is the worst thing to happen to Scottish education, the sooner the government reaslise that the better.

Guest

#8

2016-02-05 21:33

I am a Design and Technology and agree with the points. I have had countless arguments about sizes n thicknesses m get told a structural engineer says not safe. Also the amount of waste we have at the end of the year. It is hard to say to the pupils they can't take them home and they lose interest.

Guest

#9

2016-02-05 22:13

I believe the new Nat 4/5 PCS course is not good enough. And with no further attainment to Higher


Guest

#10

2016-02-06 01:45

The machining & finishing unit could easily have had an overall handle length slightly less than the standard 300mm toolrest on any long bed wood lathe.
Pupils constantly having to moving tool-rest is adding needless risk and equally important adding a lot more time to complete in large classes with few lathes.

Guest

#11

2016-02-06 10:39

The points it raises are genuine and worthy to be acted upon in a timely fashion.

Guest

#12

2016-02-06 18:19

Because I have taught this course and most of the kids taking it leave after and their work is lost to them. We also have storage issues

Guest

#13

2016-02-07 10:36

Frustration!

Guest

#14

2016-02-07 19:44

Because it directly affects my students & my department

Guest

#15

2016-02-08 13:26

I teach this subject and the points raised are valid.

Guest

#16

2016-02-26 10:28

Issue with storage is something which could maybe be looked at, but, this was an issue which was also raised with old qualification and was addressed through evidence only having to be retained for 3 weeks after completion dates.

With regards the changing of sizes, every centre and every teacher would like to have their own, unfortunately to allow assessment of tolerances etc and consistency, minimum sizes are required. These are specified by SQA for that reason.

Courses are not designed to meet the financial issues in specific centres, but to ensure standards are maintained and that consistency is ensured nationally. Regardless of any sizes given, there would always be centres who would want to reduce the sizes for financial reasons, where do we draw the line?

The courses will evolve naturally as the previous qualifications did. Instigating a petition when things don't go your way in school is perhaps something we would associate more with pupils.


Guest

#17

2016-02-26 10:55

Because of the unacceptable waste of raw material through the Inappropriate dimensioning of Practical Wood projects.

Guest

#18

2016-02-26 11:18

Because I believe 100% that the comments are true, and if nothing is done soon, practical work in schools will disappear.

Guest

#19 Re:

2016-02-26 11:37

#9: -  

 The lack of a Higher because it will have paperwork! Sorry but I'm old enough to remember teaching Higher Woodwork, it had paperwork it may have been a pain but it was completed and the end on exam was duly sat and passed like any other subject.


Guest

#20

2016-02-26 11:52

Changes need to be made.

Guest

#21

2016-02-26 12:47

The amount of space old models need is impossible to keep tidy in a workshop.

Guest

#22

2016-02-26 13:51

We want to use our own models as the models provided by the SQA are very poor, both in the model itself, but also the quality of the drawings and documentation. We've had a nightmare trying to get our models pre-verified (unsuccessful!) SQA refuse to visit us to discuss face to face!!!  The fact that the practise joints have to correct right at the start of the course means that we have a lot of pupils failing due to there limited ability and experience.  This means they have to do it again (several times for some pupils).  This all adds to our ever increasing materials bill!!


Guest

#23

2016-02-26 15:34

The implementation of N4 and N5 Practical Woodwork has been a disaster for Technical education in Scotland. The old Intermediate 1 and 2 PCS courses were robust and appropriate qualifications that benefited the pupils. The new qualifications appear to benefit only the SQA.

Guest

#24

2016-02-29 07:55

All the points this petition makes are perfectly valid and even more pertinent when related to a course that is supposed to teach pupils about sustainability!

Guest

#25

2016-02-29 14:27

Woodwork N4/5 is a badly thought out course, I feel I no longer teach but only give out assessments and gather evidence. There is no progression in this course, pupils have to produce a range of joints at the start of the course to the same tolerances as at the end of the course. 

The other practical course, Metalwork, is even worse than Woodwork. It is not possible to make some of the models from the mistake ridden, confused drawings produced by the SQA. I have had three attempts at getting prior verification for my own three unit models, it has been refused each time. The prior verifier has not once used the right documentation for the course, he has copied and pasted from one unit to another, making it meaningless for one unit, he has completely ignored units on two occasions, he gives wrong names for tools and gives wrong sizes. There are many other mistakes he has made. The SQA has told me to accept this verifiers decision as final despite the above.