Have schools stopped pupils taking GCSE's early?

poet123

securityguy wrote: »

But knowledge of how to read prospectuses doesn't change as quickly.

"Everyone" knows that, for example, law is a worthless A Level even if you want to do law. But people still do it, thinking it's a good route in a law degree. Schools should advise where parents don't.

I think to say Law is a worthless A level is to overstate the case.

I have two sons who are lawyers and both of them did that as an A level (along with four more) it didn't seem to hamper their choices. They were interested in it, hence they did well, if they had chosen another subject that held their interest less they may not have achieved as high a grade.

You have to make a choice regarding subjects, you need the route which suits the intended path and one which holds your interest, otherwise it is counter productive.

pavlovs_dog

We have stopped fast tracking in all subjects because of the timetabling problems it causes.

To make fast tracked classes viable from a timetable perspective, you need 'normal' class sizes to avoid having a knock on affect on lower ability sets (which benefit from smaller classes). For us as a school which has 7-8 form entry each year, this means that a fast tracked set needs to have 35 pupils in it on both sides of the year group. I am yet to discover a year group where all 70 of the selected children are capable of getting an A*, which is often what parents expect of fast tracked children. We inevitably end up with the odd child here and there who make the class to make up the numbers. Some thrive and rise to the challenge, others flounder and need much more help along the way to scrape a C grade, which isn't what fast tracking should be about.

In Year 11 having completed their GCSE, we are faced with a logistical nightmare. The step from GCSE to A Level is huge and not all of the fast tracked children are able to cope with the demands of completing an AS level. For those who can, they suffer because the way our timetable is constructed means they get less contact time than they would because the AS level has to fit into a GCSE slot on the timetable. In the case of core subjects which have to be studied until the end of KS4 by law, we don't have the option of filling the time with a short course GCSE in a different subject, even if staffing would allow this.

This coming academic year is the first year we won't be offering fast tracking. As a school in a well-to-do area, there will no doubt be uproar from parents. As a teacher, my overall view is that fast tracking often causes more problems than it solves. There are means of stretching able pupils with resorting to a relentless barrage of examinations.

Frith

[QUOTE=


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.

Hey, what's wrong with A Level English Language?!

Your school would despair at my A Levels (English Lang, History and Classical Civilisation) but I got offers from 5 Russell group Unis!

Re: GCSEs. I took Geology early (took an extra class in the lunchtimes) and English. We were the only year ever (school now been open 50 years!) to take English early. Why they chose we 6 to experiment on, I have no idea. If we had not have got As, they would have wanted us to re-take it with everyone else.

neverdespairgirl

Frith wrote: »

Hey, what's wrong with A Level English Language?!

Your school would despair at my A Levels (English Lang, History and Classical Civilisation) but I got offers from 5 Russell group Unis!

Re: GCSEs. I took Geology early (took an extra class in the lunchtimes) and English. We were the only year ever (school now been open 50 years!) to take English early. Why they chose we 6 to experiment on, I have no idea. If we had not have got As, they would have wanted us to re-take it with everyone else.

They wouldn't despair - history and class civ are perfectly respectable in any company.

English language is seen as easier and less challenging in some places, that's why my school didn't offer it. I did English, history and geography, and physics AS.

starlight29

My daughter is 13 and in year 9 she will take both ict and history gcse s in january shes just going into year 9 and is in top set for everything I was surprised but her school do this for students they think are capable so its still done just depends on your childs school I think

Starlight

FBaby

Well if I was feeling a bit confused and slightly worried about GSCEs before reading this thread, I am now even more!

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.

That's all very well, but despite all the research and certain level of intelligence, the whole thing remain totally confusing. I don't feel in any position to advise my daughter because the school has done nothing at all to inform parents and the only information I have received is from the mouth of my DD who I trust, but surely it is not for her to advise me! The internet just like this thread tells you one thing and then another.

My DD is starting year 9 next week. I have been told that she will start her GCSE in IT this year. I have no idea what this mean! That she will take her official GCSE at the end of this year? That it will only be a module but not the finale one? We just don't know.

She also has been told that she will be starting a second language this year. I thought why not, she was keen, but then started to wonder whether it was with the expectation that she will take both languages at GCSEs now. And if that is the case, does it mean that she will be limited in the number of options she can take? My DD has said that she can only take so many options at GCSEs and we had already worked out which one she would take and that doesn't include another language unless it can be additional.

I am delighted with her school as a whole, but I have to say that I am really disappointed with the little information we have received in regards to GCSEs. That's all well if most children don't chose their options until year 10, but what about those few selected to start in year 9?

I thought there was no need to get involved in decisions at this stage but now don't feel as confident and will need to make an appointment with the course leader when she returns.

FBaby

starlight29 wrote: »

My daughter is 13 and in year 9 she will take both ict and history gcse s in january shes just going into year 9 and is in top set for everything I was surprised but her school do this for students they think are capable so its still done just depends on your childs school I think

Starlight

oh, just read your post. Clearly very similar to my DD then although I really hope she is not expected to take it in January

Dunroamin

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

They wouldn't despair - history and class civ are perfectly respectable in any company.

English language is seen as easier and less challenging in some places, that's why my school didn't offer it. I did English, history and geography, and physics AS.

Hardly surprising it's seen as a soft option, the exams are on a par with O level English Language in the past!

esmerelda98

poet123 wrote: »

It is rather patronising to suggest that being informed and interested in your kids is the preserve of the middle class.

It is not patronising to suggest that parents with a poorer education attainment and poorer social status and progression are more likely to defer to those they consider experts, especially when they are presented with an argument that seems, on the face of it, to make sense. The parent assumes, not unreasonably, that the teacher thinks the child can achieve their full potential by doing the exam early, not that the child can easily achieve a pass grade.

I think that just as the success of an education system or a school should be judged not by the top levels of achievement, but by the progression of the weakest, you need to consider the abilities of the most lacking of parents, because their children are the ones most desperately in need of a good education to improve their opportunities in life.

esmerelda98

FBaby wrote: »

Well if I was feeling a bit confused and slightly worried about GSCEs before reading this thread, I am now even more!



That's all very well, but despite all the research and certain level of intelligence, the whole thing remain totally confusing. I don't feel in any position to advise my daughter because the school has done nothing at all to inform parents and the only information I have received is from the mouth of my DD who I trust, but surely it is not for her to advise me! The internet just like this thread tells you one thing and then another.

My DD is starting year 9 next week. I have been told that she will start her GCSE in IT this year. I have no idea what this mean! That she will take her official GCSE at the end of this year? That it will only be a module but not the finale one? We just don't know.

She also has been told that she will be starting a second language this year. I thought why not, she was keen, but then started to wonder whether it was with the expectation that she will take both languages at GCSEs now. And if that is the case, does it mean that she will be limited in the number of options she can take? My DD has said that she can only take so many options at GCSEs and we had already worked out which one she would take and that doesn't include another language unless it can be additional.

I am delighted with her school as a whole, but I have to say that I am really disappointed with the little information we have received in regards to GCSEs. That's all well if most children don't chose their options until year 10, but what about those few selected to start in year 9?

I thought there was no need to get involved in decisions at this stage but now don't feel as confident and will need to make an appointment with the course leader when she returns.

Well, poet123, there you go. FBaby appears to be reasonably well educated, and to be doing quite well socially-economically. She also appears to be quite interested and informed about her children's education. She is perplexed and I'm not sure it occurred to her before reading this thread that there was any issue to consider. After all, her daughter doing the best she possibly can academically is also in the school's best interests.

I'm afraid I think that a person who left school with a few poor qualifications and has only ever had unskilled work (1) is not likely to consider that there may be serious downsides to entering exams early, and (2) is unlikely to put up a sustained challenge to school policy if they do. It's not that it's impossible that they would, just that the majority wouldn't.

I think it's not just a very uncaring society that leaves those at the bottom (for want of a better phrase) to fend for themselves, it's also dangerous because it breeds resentment and they can feel that trying hard is pointless (so they might as well milk the benefits system, for example), or that those who appear well-off are fair game. Though FBaby's post and other posts on here show that it is not just the parents at the bottom that are perplexed or clueless.