The answer depends on where you live in the United Kingdom. My AI friend told me the following after a few seconds. Should location defined what one should know? I highlighted the key AI points below.

AI said,

“The Scottish National Curriculum and the English National Curriculum have many similarities but also some key differences. Both curricula are designed to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in life, but the Scottish National Curriculum has a particular emphasis on Scotland’s distinct culture, history, and values.

The Scottish National Curriculum places a greater emphasis on critical thinking and creativity, while the English National Curriculum focuses more on the acquisition of knowledge. The Scottish National Curriculum also has a broader range of assessment practices, giving students more opportunities for feedback and adaptation.

The structure of the curricula also differ. The Scottish National Curriculum is divided into four stages: Early (ages 3-5), First (ages 5-8), Second (ages 8-12) and Third (ages 12-15). The English National Curriculum is divided into seven stages: Early Years Foundation Stage (ages 3-5), Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7), Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11), Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14), Key Stage 4 (ages 14-16) and Key Stage 5 (ages 16-18).

Finally, the Scottish National Curriculum has a greater emphasis on social justice and equity, while the English National Curriculum has a greater emphasis on academic excellence and competition. This difference in approach has implications for the future prospects of students in each country.“

Thank you AI, the comparison is quite interesting. In my opinion, the English system is undoubtedly more precise in what should be known, and the King’s Scholarship is very much the definition of the acquisition of knowledge. One could say that is a traditional approach in need of a revamp. Etonians are no longer exported across the empire. More equity could benefit the wider masses in England. The Scottish system, in my opinion, is vaguer in the description, which seems to make it potentially easier for schools to meet the Scottish Curriculum standards. There might be a lack of resources in terms of funding and teachers’ availability. At the same time, it is unlikely that resources are distributed evenly in England, or Scotland.

So what are the implications for the future prospects of students in England and Scotland?

For an 11-year-old, the knowledge is based on either at the end of Second for Scotland or Key Stage 3 for England. My current understanding is in Scotland, formal Science teaching starts at age 12 in some cases, which will make it difficult for the child to be competitive in the Science papers compared to starting at age 8 as per the English Curriculum. I will speak to experts to understand the strengths and weaknesses of either system. This episode may will evolve as time goes on.

Would a balanced approach be better? So advice to those in the English System, don’t take the exams so seriously and try to relax. Happiness is important. Advice to the Scottish System would be to learn more formally and can set higher standards. I think the middle ground may have the best of both systems or, equally likely, the worse of both systems. Either method, the destination is expected to be similar, i.e. those who want to be scientists will become excellent scientists. I have met outstanding scientists from both sides of the border. It would be interesting to see the different journeys that may result in a different attrition rate.

I am focused on King’s Scholarship and academic excellence (English), adaptation, equity (Scottish). My approach is balanced. What about competition? I will cover that in my episode titled “Formula 1 inspired approach. Are you in a race with others or yourself?”.