Have schools stopped pupils taking GCSE's early?

peachyprice

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

I really don't get how they can expect a yr 9 pupil to get an A in History GCSE when they've not started the course. When is she going to cram in the topics that other pupils will have more time to be taught? That's absolute madness and bears no relation as to the capabilities of the child, if they haven't been taught the topics, they haven't been taught them.

blackandwhitebunny

securityguy wrote: »

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.

.

A lot of what you call carp is actually caused by people like Gove and previous Education ministers making schools jump through very specific roots to achieve targets.
Under the last government schools were judged on how many A-C's they got in GCSE or equivalent qualifications. This meant schools started offering loads of BTEC options, the Government encouraged this by allowing exam boards to offer these easier qualifications as GCSE equivalents.
This Government and Gove are pushing 'proper' GCSE's A-C's but the way it works A's get you slightly more credit but not enough to make any real difference. so the pressure is to get as many C's as possible. Not all pupils are capable of C's or higher so its better for schools to get 10 C's from capable students rather than 8 A*'s from the same.
Any country that wants schools to do purely what is best for the pupils keeps politics out of education.

pavlovs_dog

As an experiment, in my department we have begun the controlled assessment module with our year 9 pupils in the summer term this year, as there simply isn't enough time to finish the course in KS4 (we are not given the full compliment of contact hours that we need to deliver the course).

Pupils complete one third of the module, completing the remainder in year 10, which is when the work will actually be submitted to the exam board. I know other departments in my school are following suit due to similar time pressures.

As the pressure on schools grow to deliver a broader curriculum on a fixed number of hours, lots of subjects are feeling the squeeze. We've recently added the intermediate baccalaureate into the mix as well, which has been a nightmare to deliver on account of insufficient contact time (anyone notice a theme)?

neverdespairgirl

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Year 9 - so she has 3 more academic years before the main GCSE-taking time?

That wasn't uncommon in schools I knew of, starting a new language in what was Upper Fourth at my school. The top 3 sets in French at my school started German, Italian or Spanish in the Upper Fourth, and had 3 lessons a week of German, and 2 of French, and the bottom 2 sets had 5 French lessons a week.

Then, when choosing GCSEs, you could do either French or the new language, or both, as you saw fit. I dropped French and did German GCSE.

My brother's school had a similar idea.

If you don't know, and the school isn't telling you, ask!

Dunroamin

pavlovs_dog wrote: »

As an experiment, in my department we have begun the controlled assessment module with our year 9 pupils in the summer term this year, as there simply isn't enough time to finish the course in KS4 (we are not given the full compliment of contact hours that we need to deliver the course).

Pupils complete one third of the module, completing the remainder in year 10, which is when the work will actually be submitted to the exam board. I know other departments in my school are following suit due to similar time pressures.

As the pressure on schools grow to deliver a broader curriculum on a fixed number of hours, lots of subjects are feeling the squeeze. We've recently added the intermediate baccalaureate into the mix as well, which has been a nightmare to deliver on account of insufficient contact time (anyone notice a theme)?

Unfortunately, a broader curriculum usually seems to me to consist of clogging up the timetable with non subjects, sold to the students on the grounds of being fun, trendy and/or relevant.

peachyprice

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Year 9 - so she has 3 more academic years before the main GCSE-taking time?

That wasn't uncommon in schools I knew of, starting a new language in what was Upper Fourth at my school. The top 3 sets in French at my school started German, Italian or Spanish in the Upper Fourth, and had 3 lessons a week of German, and 2 of French, and the bottom 2 sets had 5 French lessons a week.

Then, when choosing GCSEs, you could do either French or the new language, or both, as you saw fit. I dropped French and did German GCSE.

My brother's school had a similar idea.

If you don't know, and the school isn't telling you, ask!

Yes, that's how it worked when I was at school, I did German for 2 years in yr 1 & 2 (as they were then ) then started French in yr 3, continuing with both through to O Level in yr 5, with the option of dropping one or the other at the end of yr 4.

poet123

esmerelda98 wrote: »

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.

I fully agree with you and I don't believe schools do do enough to inform parents of the downsides of taking GCSE's early. They are not doing it for the benefit of the child but as a sop to the all important stats.

However, all parents are told what the intentions of the school are and can ask for further information or make an appointment to see the Personal Tutor to discuss any reservations they have.

My point was that doing that, being concerned, wanting the best for their child is not confined to the middle classes. I fully accept that it is harder for some parents to do this than it is for others, and I do feel that schools should be open and honest about the outcomes of early sitting of GCSE's. I doubt whether any child sitting an exam early is going to show their full potential, so if you think that your child is being sacrificed to the stats you need to speak up.

That said, re sits at GCSE do not seem to adversely affect future paths unless they are numerous, so if achievement is lower than desired a re sit is always an option.

Dunroamin

poet123 wrote: »

I fully agree with you and I don't believe schools do do enough to inform parents of the downsides of taking GCSE's early. They are not doing it for the benefit of the child but as a sop to the all important stats.

However, all parents are told what the intentions of the school are and can ask for further information or make an appointment to see the Personal Tutor to discuss any reservations they have.

My point was that doing that, being concerned, wanting the best for their child is not confined to the middle classes. I fully accept that it is harder for some parents to do this than it is for others, and I do feel that schools should be open and honest about the outcomes of early sitting of GCSE's. I doubt whether any child sitting an exam early is going to show their full potential, so if you think that your child is being sacrificed to the stats you need to speak up.

That said, re sits at GCSE do not seem to adversely affect future paths unless they are numerous, so if achievement is lower than desired a re sit is always an option.

They may tell them their intentions but they're unlikely to tell them their motivation.

If your family doesn't have an academic background then the assumption will be that the school knows best and is always acting in the best interest of the individual student, which is often not the case.

poet123

peachyprice wrote: »

I really don't get how they can expect a yr 9 pupil to get an A in History GCSE when they've not started the course. When is she going to cram in the topics that other pupils will have more time to be taught? That's absolute madness and bears no relation as to the capabilities of the child, if they haven't been taught the topics, they haven't been taught them.

My youngest son (along with all his top set) sat his mock Chemistry exam last November, the highest grade was a E.....and these were all A* predicted kids.

It transpired that they had not been taught 50% of what was on the exam paper. No one bothered to tell us that or explain the result until we ( I know a lot of the parents) complained and asked for an explanation.

We never did really get to the bottom of it, given that mocks are internally set...but we insisted that the colleges were told as it could easily have affected their entrance to specific courses in the 6th form. Grudgingly, the school agreed to contact the colleges and explain that a "blip";) had occurred and that the kids were still on track to achieve the predicted grades. After that they had extra Chemistry lessons after school from January till June and in the study leave period they were back in school for classes, so the school did take our complaint seriously.

We were very worried as Chemistry is crucial to what our son wants to do. Thankfully it did pan out and he achieved the predicted grade. It does show though that as parents you have to question, you have to push to make sure that everything is on track. And, really it shouldn't be that way, schools should have the child at the forefront of their thinking and not be distracted from that by being a political football for the parties to kick around moving the goalposts with every new academic year.

peachyprice

Dunroamin wrote: »

They may tell them their intentions but they're unlikely to tell them their motivation.

If your family doesn't have an academic background then the assumption will be that the school knows best and is always acting in the best interest of the individual student, which is often not the case.

I do think also that the schools prey on the vanities of the parents as is obvious from several posts here. Unsuspecting parents who trust the school and have no knowledge or previous experience wouldn't necessarily question their motives.

I wonder how many parents would be so pleased if it were put to them that their child has been chosen to take the GCSE early, even though they haven't covered the curriculum and are unlikely to get a great grade but the school are taking a punt for their own benefit, rather than the approach that some schools take of 'look, isn't your child clever, so clever we're going to give them the privilege of taking this exam early.'