Have schools stopped pupils taking GCSE's early?

loobylou2

School policy is to enter children for GCSE's early if they feel they are capable of achieving an A-C grade. They also have a policy at the end of year 8 where they make the children do additional Maths and English in year 9 at the expense of an option subject if they feel at that stage that they are not on course to achieve good GCSE passes in English and Maths. I think the reason why they are entered for GCSE's so early is so that if they don't do so well they then can have a go at resitting which is what I imagine my son will probably end up doing with Maths and Science. I feel sorry for the children to be honest. There is so much pressure on them, my 15 year old is now about to enter his third year of sitting GCSE's. I think he's done very well to say that he has taken the exams early even if he has just got C grades. Whilst he could probably have done better if he'd waited he could also have done a lot worse. There are no guarantees, a predicted grade is just that a prediction and its all down to individual performance on the day in my opinion.

jellyhead

It varies by school here.

The school my nephews attend starts taking final exams in year 9, and the entire school takes language and maths in year 9, not just the brighter children. They carry on with maths again, but they are not allowed to carry on with the same language, and are forced to take a different one!

So my nephew has a D and an E in languages. My son struggled but he ended up with a C in one language which I think is better. My nephew is bright and has ended up with a lot of GCSEs but I think this method might be harmful to students who struggle - surely for them it would be better to aim for a C in fewer subjects so that they have the option of getting into college.

As for separate sciences, my son took all three - they took some of the modules in year ten but the final exam was in year 11.

My son's school only puts the very brightest in for year 9 exams and even then it's extra subjects, not their main GCSEs. They do things like an extra BTECH alongside their normal lessons and then they take double IT instead of single IT during years 10 and 11, for example (the extra lessons are after school)

I don't know why the different schools do things differently. I suspect that my nephew's school wanted extra numbers for languages to become a specialist language college ... it didn't really work for my nephew though.

Spendless

Thanks for the explanations. It sounds like they do some of the modules in yr 10 for triple science and that's what I was thinking of and don't enter the pupils early in any subject or don't anymore. Same child got A* GCSE at this school for Spanish at end of yr 7, however the family had lived in Spain for a few years previously.

loobylou2 wrote: »

They also have a policy at the end of year 8 where they make the children do additional Maths and English in year 9 at the expense of an option subject if they feel at that stage that they are not on course to achieve good GCSE passes in English and Maths.

Is that called Work based skills? They do that at son's school too, but the ones selected to do it drop French from end of yr 8. Son is envious of his friend dropping French a year earlier than he can, but not if it comes at the expense of extra English and Maths.

loobylou2

Spendless wrote: »

Thanks for the explanations. It sounds like they do some of the modules in yr 10 for triple science and that's what I was thinking of and don't enter the pupils early in any subject or don't anymore. Same child got A* GCSE at this school for Spanish at end of yr 7, however the family had lived in Spain for a few years previously.



Is that called Work based skills? They do that at son's school too, but the ones selected to do it drop French from end of yr 8. Son is envious of his friend dropping French a year earlier than he can, but not if it comes at the expense of extra English and Maths.

Don't think so, they just call it Option English and Maths. They let the children choose 2 options in year 9, 2 in year 10 and 2 in year 11. However if they are not on target for A-C passes in English and Maths at the end of year 8 they have to drop one of their year 9 option choices and do Option English and Maths instead!!!! Its a good thing in my view, I'd far rather DD1 spent additional time working on her English and Maths skills at the moment rather than doing a GCSE in Food Technology!!!!!. She can bake cakes to her hearts content at home lol.

securityguy

jellyhead wrote: »

It varies by school here.

The school my nephews attend starts taking final exams in year 9, and the entire school takes language and maths in year 9, not just the brighter children. They carry on with maths again, but they are not allowed to carry on with the same language, and are forced to take a different one!

So, a policy designed to ensure that none of them can even apply to the better universities.

So my nephew has a D and an E in languages. My son struggled but he ended up with a C in one language which I think is better.

But utterly toxic on a UCAS form.

My son's school only puts the very brightest in for year 9 exams and even then it's extra subjects, not their main GCSEs.

So what is the benefit to them? If they are bright, they should be targeting A* in core subjects at 16. It's precisely this sort of carp which Gove is, properly, trying to stop.

They do things like an extra BTECH alongside their normal lessons

If they are "bright", what possible benefit to them is a BTEC?

and then they take double IT instead of single IT

Another worthless qualification for a bright child.

I don't know why the different schools do things differently.

It's hardly a surprise when parents of children at state comprehensives whine that their children aren't getting places at good universities while children from private schools are. The state schools are putting them in for the wrong exams in the wrong subjects at the wrong time, so that the children get the wrong grades. The private schools put them in for GCSE in decent subjects, at sixteen, at which point they get decent results. Similarly for A levels: state pupils are increasingly doing worthless "extra" bits of AS and A2 at 16 or 17, getting poor grades and wasting time and effort that could be spent on doing decent 4 ASes at 17 followed by 3 decent A2s at 18.

Parents are lied to by schools, and convinced that "accelerated" or "early entry" is worthwhile. It isn't. You can tell this, because early entry is most often used by failing or low-quality schools. Your local private school is entering people for eight or ten GCSEs at sixteen, and probably nothing else. Even if you get an A* early there is still the concern that you're not showing that you can handle a full workload, which is why selective universities want to see three serious A2 subjects taken in one sitting and will only make an offer based on that.

the_pink_panther_2

In terms of entering earlier for some GCSE's and then getting only C's etc. I've heard that in schools that struggle to get kids to gain ok GCSEs this can be a strategy if they're worried the kids won't get a pass at all by the end of year 11; that way it gives a chance for those who struggle to have several attempts at resitting and hopefully passing. This really is more relevent to weaker students or weaker schools who fear the student will leave without gaining a minimum of a C grade in a subject particularly if it's a core subject. Can't say I agree with this but then I have no first hand experience of such schools so maybe the reality is that in some cases it does maximise prospects for some individuals.

poet123

, a

securityguy wrote: »

So, a policy designed to ensure that none of them can even apply to the better universities.



But utterly toxic on a UCAS form.



So what is the benefit to them? If they are bright, they should be targeting A* in core subjects at 16. It's precisely this sort of carp which Gove is, properly, trying to stop.



If they are "bright", what possible benefit to them is a BTEC?



Another worthless qualification for a bright child.



It's hardly a surprise when parents of children at state comprehensives whine that their children aren't getting places at good universities while children from private schools are. The state schools are putting them in for the wrong exams in the wrong subjects at the wrong time, so that the children get the wrong grades. The private schools put them in for GCSE in decent subjects, at sixteen, at which point they get decent results. Similarly for A levels: state pupils are increasingly doing worthless "extra" bits of AS and A2 at 16 or 17, getting poor grades and wasting time and effort that could be spent on doing decent 4 ASes at 17 followed by 3 decent A2s at 18.

Parents are lied to by schools, and convinced that "accelerated" or "early entry" is worthwhile. It isn't. You can tell this, because early entry is most often used by failing or low-quality schools. Your local private school is entering people for eight or ten GCSEs at sixteen, and probably nothing else. Even if you get an A* early there is still the concern that you're not showing that you can handle a full workload, which is why selective universities want to see three serious A2 subjects taken in one sitting and will only make an offer based on that.

I don't disagree with your overall premise, however, it is up to the parents to do some research and advise their kids (and instruct the schools) accordingly. We told the school our youngest attends that unless he was predicted an A* we would not agree to him sitting any exam early, as you say what is the point of a B/C two years early when a higher grade would be achieved at the correct entry point.

Our son is at a high (but not the highest locally) achieving state school and has just achieved 8 A* and 3 A's at GCSE and a B at AS level in a subject studied after school for 2 hours a week from September till May, with the first exam in January. He already had 2 A* from his early sittings, so for him it has worked.

That said, he is fully aware that the slate is now wiped clean and he has to achieve again at AS/A level to ensure his choice of university is available. So, it can be done by state school applicants, you just have to be aware of what is and isn't acceptable to those institutions.

As you say, for some, re sits put you outside their parameters from the off, yet this is seemingly not well known. For some courses the points achieved at GCSE (not AS/A level) also count, again, not well known, and for some post grad courses all the above factor in.

securityguy

the_pink_panther wrote: »

In terms of entering earlier for some GCSE's and then getting only C's etc. I've heard that in schools that struggle to get kids to gain ok GCSEs this can be a strategy if they're worried the kids won't get a pass at all by the end of year 11

Perhaps. But doing it across the whole cohort means that even the children who are capable of more are denied the opportunity to apply to better universities. And then teachers in the state sector invent some sort of conspiracy of private education who are nabbing all the places, when a large part of the actual problem is the state schools' policies on exam entries.

securityguy

poet123 wrote: »

I don't disagree with your overall premise, however, it is up to the parents to do some research and advise their kids (and instruct the schools) accordingly.

So middle-class parents who are aware of the issues and willing to put their requirements to the school are able to get their children in the better universities, while the school shafts children whose parents can't or don't take the same interest? So much for social mobility.

neverdespairgirl

jellyhead wrote: »

My son's school only puts the very brightest in for year 9 exams and even then it's extra subjects, not their main GCSEs. They do things like an extra BTECH alongside their normal lessons and then they take double IT instead of single IT during years 10 and 11, for example (the extra lessons are after school)

I don't know why the different schools do things differently. I suspect that my nephew's school wanted extra numbers for languages to become a specialist language college ... it didn't really work for my nephew though.

Both schools sounds as if they are seriously failing their pupils, IMO.

The very brightest gain very little from taking GCSEs in year 9, and risk a lot. And B Techs - if they want an academic future, they are a waste of time.

In terms of universities, for example, it is far better to have 9 A* and A grades at GCSE, rather than 5 A* and A grades, 3 Bs, 2 Cs and 2 Ds.

i think it's almost certainly much better to have 9 A* and A grades at GCSE, rather than 9 A* and A grades and a C or D.

The examples in this thread show how seriously some schools are letting their bright and academic pupils down.

I took GCSEs in 1993, and got 6 As and 4Bs (no A* grade when I did GCSE or A level). That was well below average for my school, and I was warned I'd need to do better at A level. I took A levels in 1995 and got all As, which made me one of the 44 pupils in my year of 101 to get all As.

No-one at my school did any GCSE early, unless they were (like my sister) an entire academic year ahead in everything. My sister and I both took 11+ exams aged 9, and started secondary school aged 10. My birthday's at the end of March, my sister's in mid-May, so she took her GCSEs aged 14 and 15 (exams either side of her birthday) and A levels aged 16 and 17 (ditto) and then went for Foundation Art course for a year before university aged 18.

My school was also careful not to offer any GCSEs such as business studies, media studies or law, all of which are frequently seen by universities as second rate. Similarly at A level - you could do English Lit but not English language A level, economics but not business studies, and art but not media studies. They also only allowed you to do one non-academic subject (if you did 3) or 2 (if you did 4 A levels), those such as art, music, or drama.

That meant that all the girls at my school who wanted to go to university had the right subjects to do so if they wished, and hadn't messed up their chances by doing subjects too early, or second-best subjects / B techs.

Of the 101 girls in my year in the sixth form, 98 of us went to university, 2 to art school, and one to RADA.