Mumsnet Talk

that's why we do only a two year KS3!

I have a feeling KS3 will be squeezed even more between the primary school and the GCSE reforms.

it was given a very high profile about 15-20 years ago but that's all passed on by...

My sons primary is very good with RE, history and science too.
Ds has come on leaps and bounds since starting year 4 and although a lot of that is down to work we do with him at home, his teachers were excellent.
They are ok in year 5 too, but his year 4 teachers really helped him believe in his abilities...he would never believe me
<wishes mrz was her sons teacher!>

Ds is doing pythagoras and quadratic and simultaneous equations in yr 7 - we don't get levels as he's now at a non-selective independent (he was 5b end of yr6 but was capable of doing harder stuff at home - by choice!). I think he could easily pass a foundation level GCSE paper...

(Incidentally all the science he's doing seems to be KS4 stuff if we've ever gone onto BBC Bitesize site for additional help, so not sure if they'll need to go back and fill in some KS3 topics at any point?! His science teacher said the whole top group could easily pass single science GCSE by yr 8 but obviously they were aiming for triple science...not sure if taking up three of the nine courses with science is a good idea for those not planning on science later but, hey ho, it's years away yet!)

I've got to be honest I don't think he did much studying

I am sure she did for him to be able to pick up GCSE from it in his own personal studies.

but his year 6 teacher provided him with excellent grounding

They suggested he studied alone in a cupboard off the library

I'm guessing a back story here, which I can remember some details from your previous posting.

He did well, that's very impressive to achieve the GCSE in this way.

that should say after year 7

Well he passed his GCSE without attending any lessons ShipwreckedAndComatose so I guess he did

what, even for GCSE mrz?? gosh!!

And he did bioacculumation, the reactivity series, pressure, moments, velocity and acceleration at primary before reaching KS3?

that's really very impressive primary teaching!

tiggy my D is in Yr7 and is certainly doing Pythagoras and quadratic equations - she'a solid L6 at the moment

DS is out at the moment but when he gets home I'm going to ask him. He's a solid level 6 in Year 7, predicted grade 8 in Year 9 but I honestly didn't think he'd be anywhere GCSE standard right now. When I present him with this new information and get him looking at quadratic equations, he's going to blame all of you

Yes it would

So..if my son was a 4c in maths at end of year 5 that would be considered good?
Not that it matters, really.
He has made really good progress so just trying to keep on with that...
Btw op your dd sounds very bright
Well done her.

The only new science my son was taught at secondary school was the periodic table but science was a definite strength in his primary school

tiggy my D is in Yr7 and is certainly doing Pythagoras and quadratic equations - she'a solid L6 at the moment, so that stuff is being taught at age 11/12. She wasn't quite there in Yr6 though, but then was 'only' a 5a at the time. I think she'd certainly have a decent shot at the GCSE foundation paper.

Yes, I would agree with that, although I know less about teaching those subjects

Shipwrecked, I would agree that in some subjects the 'factual content' element would prevent even the most able younger children being able to take foundation papers straight off.

Maths, tbh, is probably the subject in which it is most possible IYSWIM. English probably requires a level of 'emotional intelligence / maturity' that is hard for a younger child to dsiplay, and most other subjects require significant 'factual content'. Perhaps languages might be another example, if very well taught at primary level?

I doubt they could manage a foundation science paper straight off though, because the syllabus content at KS4 is different to KS3. If taught it, then yes they could if you see what I mean.

We do start Ks4 in year 9. No student would actually sit the exam until the end of year 10 earliest because, as has been said up thread, they are not emotionally ready for the exam.

However, we have found that the students are ready for the level of work they are expected to do.

The first question on the foundation paper is "draw the line of symmetry"

In actual fact, the level 6 paper is probably consistently harder than the FoundationGCSE as ALL the questions on it are level 6. The GCSE paper covers grades from G upwards so the first few questions are ridiculously easy!

Well done Santy's DD
I have a year 5 in my class who is level 6 in Maths (sadly for me also level 1a children in same class maths group) and they are the first level 6 I have taught.

I think a child that is genuinely a level 6 in Y6 and not just scrapping it to meet targets is quite capable of the GCSE foundation paper.

I am remembering perhaps my own exam days of quadratic equations, simultaneous equations, Pythagoras and other things I am sure DS would have no clue about.

Maybe I underestimate him or maybe the foundation paper is very different?
DS is in Year 7 and now a level 6 (I don't know his sub level but he scored over 90% in his assessment and is predicted a level 8 for Year 9 which the school said is the highest).

DS took a Maths GCSE foundation paper as his first termly assessment in Year 7....he was level 6 on leaving primary, and is a high 6 bordering on 7 now, so that seems entirely sensible.

A grade C at GCSE is in theory the equivalent to a level 7 on the NC levels, so yes, a level 5 would "fail dismally" but level 6 children could have a jolly good go! Has anyone looked at the maths GCSE paper recently? The foundation paper, which covers up to grade C, is well within the capabilities of good level 6 candidates. ( In fact I might give it to my top group next week to see how they get on!)