Have schools stopped pupils taking GCSE's early?

Cycrow

when i was at school, i was doing some GCSE work in maths at primary school (year 6-7)

But the secondary school wouldn't advance anyone, they will keep everyone at the same level, so when i started year 8 i was held back and had to do the basic maths.

probably why i got so bored at school and rebelled :P

mumps

pavlovs_dog wrote: »

It isn't just an issue at KS4-5. September every year is spent fielding phone calls from parents questioning the sets that the KS3 children have been placed in, many of whom don't seem to realise that their child's performance is measured against that of the other 240+ children in the year group. If there are 35 spaces in a class and 35 children who have outperformed their child, then their child simply won't make the cut. Whilst I fully welcome and encourage parents taking an active role in the education of their children, some parents just don't know where to draw the line. We've had people become verbally abusive towards staff over setting, and the level of abuse and frequency of it seems to grow year on year.

But to be fair schools do sometimes get it wrong. I don't agree with the parents getting abusive about it but sometimes you do need to say something. My DD had a maths teacher she had issues with in year 7 and 8 and was put in a low group in year 9, mainly I believe on his say so but probably to some extent because she hadn't shown her full potential due to the issues. I did speak to her head of year about it but said I would leave it in his hands. She moved into the top set by the end of the term and in year 13 won the maths prize in a school that has a very good record in maths.

On the other hand one of my sons was placed in set 2 for science and his science teacher saw us at the end of the year and said he should be in set 1 but he really wanted to keep him, they just got on really well and he brought out the best in him. He promised that DS wouldn't lose out and he duly got 2 A* in science. I am glad we were able to talk about it and make the right decision.

I do appreciate how difficult it can be, two of my children are now teachers so I often hear the other side of it and don't think parents should be trying to bully teachers into putting their children in the wrong set but if something is wrong you might need to say something.

Just wanted to add that it must be almost impossible to make the best decision for every child when schools are so big and budgets are so tight.

pavlovs_dog

FBaby wrote: »

These are the kind of comments that frankly might have well been written in Chinese… How is one who has never been involved with gsce’s expected to know what ‘modular exams’ or ‘controlled assessment module’ are?

There are two main approaches to exams at the moment, modular and linear. Modular means that the course (and usually the assessment) is broken down into modules or chunks. A linear system means that all or almost all of the assessment is sat at the end of the course. Therefore a pupil taking the traditional approach of studying a GCSE over years 10 and 11 would sit all assessment pertaining to the course at the end of year 11, whereas a pupil on a modular course may do parts at various points over the two years.

Traditional examination points at GCSE are May and June, with re-sit modules often available in November and January. In England currently (and elsewhere in UK if your pupil sits a qualification offered by English exam boards) there is a move away from modular assessment back towards traditional linear methods of study. This is also true at AS and A Level. If you are a parent of pupils in Wales, there is still some dithering as to which way we will go. I'm not sure what the Scottish or Irish approach is.

Controlled assessments replace coursework. Coursework was essentially project work completed at home and then marked in school, with marks submitted to the exam board to count towards the final grade. Cheating was rife, so this was replaced by controlled assessments. This is still often project or portfolio based, but is completed in school under controlled exam conditions in a bid to cut down cheating.

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

This is not the case with our school, probably because this information will be provided at the time that most students will be starting to think about gcse’s, not when a few are selected early. As to making an appointment, of course, that’s what I plan on doing now, but how are you supposed to have reservations about the decisions the school has made on behalf of your child and/or assume they only care about the benefit to the school and couldn’t care less if your child is going to benefit from it?

FBaby wrote: »

They certainly don’t tell you that… Now that I do know (being lucky that this thread came about just now), I certainly will make that appointment and question things in detail, although still feel I don’t really know what to ask or will understand the responses (as above).

Thank you neverdespairgirl and peachyprice for your advice. I think you are right in what the school is probably doing. The thing is, I thought I could ask a friend of mine who happens to be Head of the language department at her secondary school, but her response was that she couldn’t say because all schools are different and hers only offers one language anyway. She did say though that if the school offered a second language, it would be on the assumption that the pupil would take it gsce.
This thread is actually depressing me. I seem to have foolishly assumed that I could trust the school to some extent that whatever they suggested for my daughter was for her best interest. It is quite sad that not only they are clearly failing in providing me with information to make a decision on behalf of my child, but that they might actually be suggesting way forward that could hurt her education. Not a great image for British education L

Certainly if they are entering your child early for exams you should be told, either at Parents Evening or by letter.

With languages we were told that picking up a second one gives a broader choice at GCSE.

However, unless they are very able linguistically/interested in that area as a career path few pupils seem to take both languages at GCSE level. Add into that timetabling clashes and the reduced options and one language is the norm.

A point to consider is that clearly the second language is not covered in as much depth as the first one has been as it has been studied from Y7, so, in most cases a higher grade will be achieved by continuing the first language to GCSE level than by carrying on with the second. Common sense when you think about it but we hadn't thought about it until it was pointed out to us.

zolablue25

This is a very interesting thread on a subject that will be relevant to me in a few years time. The point hat has jumped out at me is that there are "worthless" ASes and then there are ones, presumably, deemed not "worthless". I would be very interested to know which subjects fall into which list.

neverdespairgirl

pavlovs_dog wrote: »

The vanity of parents causes plenty of problems for us as a school. Our school has a wealthy catchment area and 'pushy parent syndrome' is rife. It is heartbreaking to see parents push their children towards inappropriate qualifications, or refuse to believe our professional judgement when we tell them that Tarquin simply isn't capable of A* grades, no matter how hard he tries.

My mother used to say she spent far more time at parents' evenings telling parents to give their little darlings a break, then she did telling them to kick them into action. She taught only at academic, private girls' schools (3 different ones, in the 1970s and then 1990s-2000s).

poet123

zolablue25 wrote: »

This is a very interesting thread on a subject that will be relevant to me in a few years time. The point hat has jumped out at me is that there are "worthless" ASes and then there are ones, presumably, deemed not "worthless". I would be very interested to know which subjects fall into which list.

I don't know either. but I would guess that those deemed more "worthy" would include; Maths, Sciences, English, Languages, History, in general, the traditional core subjects. Some of the "trendier" subjects; Media, Photography, etc, would fall into those deemed less worthy.

pavlovs_dog

zolablue25 wrote: »

This is a very interesting thread on a subject that will be relevant to me in a few years time. The point hat has jumped out at me is that there are "worthless" ASes and then there are ones, presumably, deemed not "worthless". I would be very interested to know which subjects fall into which list.

It is all relative. Traditional subjects (maths, sciences, languages and 'strong humanities' such as history) are often regarded favourably and indicative of offering academic rigour. Which is all well and good if your child is academically able and interested in those subjects. 'Mickey mouse subjects' such as media, psychology, art, drama can offer plenty of challenge if delivered at the appropriate pitch. I was an A* student but wouldn't have stood a chance at A level art or music, whilst A level languages were an enjoyable challenge. Horses for courses.

I studied languages and humanities at A level, and language at uni. Whilst my language A levels were the source of my subject knowledge my academic form came from my humanities studies, and played a large part in my success at uni. Many students who opt for law, psychology, sociology and the like thinking that they are soft subjects will flounder unless they develop the strong academic form required to access the high grades. There is a lot to be said for the continental approach of a broad KS5 curriculum, as it helps ensure a broader range of higher level study skills.

You may well find yourself at the mercy of the gods when it comes to option blocks at A level. Your school/college of choice may not offer the combination of subjects that your child wishes to study due to the way the timetable is constructed. Sometimes this is done intentionally to ensure a broad curriculum (ie our option blocks will not allow a pupil to study art and photography).

And god forbid a child should take a subject based purely on interest and enjoyment, learning for learning's sake, rather than be shepherded blindly into the undiscriminating indoctrination of 'univeristy education is the be all and end all'.

FBaby

Thank you Pavlovs_dog (love the name!) for taking the time to explain. I now get it, but definitely needed your explanation.

Certainly if they are entering your child early for exams you should be told, either at Parents Evening or by letter.

That's the thing, I don't even know if she will be entered for exams. What I have been told so far is that my DD has been offered to take on another language and to sign a paper to say that I agree to it. It stipulates what it will mean in terms of hours (that the hours for her first language will be reduced and she will do one session after school per month), but nothing at all in regards to exams or gcses. I have received no information at all in regards to her taking her IT exams earlier.

Common sense when you think about it but we hadn't thought about it until it was pointed out to us.

Aboslutely, this was my logic too, but having no one to discuss it with didn't help. My DD has already selected the gcses she wants to do in line with what she wants to study next, which has nothing to do with languages.

She told me that you can only take so many options and having already chosen what these would be, if indeed she is restricted, there will be no room for an additional language anyway. The thing is, I don’t know whether it is her school who is putting this restriction, or whether it is a national thing, or if she even got it wrong, even though she has always been totally reliable with the school information she has provided me in the past. I am starting to wonder what is the benefit of studying an additional language when you don’t intend on using it and she is highly unlikely to be as proficient in that language than the other. I also don’t understand the benefit of studying for her IT gcse early and whether it is modular or not, and/or when she would seat for the exam.

As a parent, I couldn’t care less about her taking exams earlier, all that matter is that she gets A*. If she can do that taking them earlier, fine but if not, I really don’t see any benefit to it at all.

poet123

As a GCSE IT is not that hard (when compared with the core subjects) and it has a lot of content that kids are already familiar with. So I suspect that is the reasoning behind early exams in that subject. One of my sons did it as an extra after school 2 hours a week and got an A*. There are two different courses available in IT at GCSE one is considerably harder than the other, so my comment may not stand for that GCSE.

Have you not had an "Options Evening" when all the logistics and detail of subject choices can be discussed?