Changes to GCSE Science

They aren’t removing combined science that will still be an option. But they must offer triple science as well

removing the ebacc as well is part of this as I assume was a motivator for schools not to offer triple science to bump up

I timetable Ph/Bi/Ch for all of KS4?

Exactly this. It’s a real shame for students who excel in these subjects and further limits the choices of students who are less academic. Surely it is just setting up some students to fail.

(DD’s dual award school had 5 option blocks at GCSE, offering a genuinely wide and varied menu. If this ends up being reduced to 4 due to a large number of students studying triple award, that seems a net loss of artists, DT specialists, dual linguists, those doing 2 humanities etc.

Since GCSEs were overhauled (to 9-1) and A levels were not changed to match, the new dual award has provided a very good basis for all the A level sciences.

DD, from a school doing dual award in order to allow maximum range of choice for all for GCSE, went to a triple-award studying school for A level. The difference was, according to the Head of Physics, one topic, which was always taught from scratch in Y13 as everyone had always forgotten it. She got an A*, as did all the science-studying students who had moved between the two schools with her.

I agree that old dual award left a much bigger gap - but that is no longer relevant.

@joanofaardvark this is my DS(15). He was made to study 3 separate sciences for GCSE along with the other students in the top set (rest of yeargroup doing combined). This only left him with one free choice for GCSE for a non academic subject. He’s in year 11 now and really not enjoying science - it’s looking unlikely he will achieve his target/predicted grades & I honestly think he’d have been better suited to combined science with a second free choice of a subject that actually interests him.

The cynic in me thinks the schools policy of insisting top set do this is purely motivated by their wish to maximise Ebacc results rather than because it’s right for the individual child.

It is mandatory in England

I am reading it as you have to offer triple science not that combined is being removed and that the ebacc marking of schools to English maths and science is being overhauled

a school local to me who used to be seen as a science school stopped offering triple sciences as an option - because it wanted to improve grades and spend more time which is a slight disadvantage for a level and those who are better in one science than another

Not everyone has to study science where we are (NI). DD did 10 subjects, 3 of which were sciences and didn’t feel that she was hard done by in terms of choice of optional subjects - she still had 3 spaces left.

It's compulsory for children in state schools to do science at GCSE though. Dual was brought in specifically to ensure that DC, who weren't able/interested to pursue science after GCSE, obtained GCSE in sciences.

For a subject that everyone has to study, forcing it to take up 3 of possibly 8 subject choices is just not for everyone.
Combined science is a good general basis, takes up two subjects and plenty can go on to A Level from that point - or A level in something that interests them more.
I can't view the Times article so I am not quite sure what they are proposing, is it that science will now take up three GCSE subject slots for everyone?

If they aren’t interested/don’t have the ability in science then they shouldn’t take the subject, or alternatively they can opt for foundation level. It’s that simple. If a pupil can’t manage GCSE level science then realistically they won’t be taking it any further. Not everything needs to be accessible to everyone and that’s just life unfortunately! An entire cohort’s future shouldn’t be disadvantaged so that the less capable can keep up. It’s why my child went to a grammar!

As a teacher (of English) in an SEN secondary school, these changes probably mean that none of our students will do Science GCSE anymore. It’ll be Entry Level for all. A real shame as we do have the odd students who gets a 5/5, 4/3 etc. The step up in content, plus the increase in exam time (7.5 hours to 10.5 plus extra time) is just not doable for our students.

I have an engineering degree and already teach all three sciences despite being a physics specialist.

This 'change' is actually meaningless and, as indicated by the daily mail article unworkable in light of not having enough science teachers full stop.

Until you get pay reflecting the specialities of each subject, rather then paying people with potentially PHD level science qualficiations the same as PE teachers (Who yes, could have a PHD in sports science, but they wouldn't need it.....) then you will not get the people in.

Interestingly, one of the top academically selective schools in the country elected to have all their pupils follow double award.

They figured that all the pupils were intelligent enough to do the content catch up work over the long summer hol after GCSEs and the extra time allowed them to pursue more experimental and stretch-and-challenge work.

The difference between double and triple is content, not challenge (although, obviously, with the same teaching time, you have to go much faster in triple, which is a challenge in itself).

Interesting that you want to encourage more girls into STEM. I run a Brownie unit and a lot of our activities are STEM based and usually enjoyed by the girls which is great and I agree we do need to encourage more girls into it. Yet at the same time there is a thread on here discussing men entering early years teaching/nursery roles and suggesting a blanket ban on it. Again I understand why some people think this. So another question would be if we were to get more girls into STEM and stop boys looking to enter what is seen as more woman jobs who is going to pick up the inevitable shortfall in childcare and other "caring " roles.

The kids currently get their idea of what Science is from the media - the Big Bang Theory is a lovely example. All of the major scientists in that show were shown as giant, socially inept nerds, who spend their free time in old comic book stores, playing dress-up and desperately failing at getting partners.

And yet all of them apart from Raj actually ended up with beautiful girlfriends/wives and didn’t seem to have that many issues getting female attention.

It isn't ridiculous for DC who aren't interested/have ability in science..
Good schools offer both Dual and Triple.
Forcing schools to only offer Triple just means DC who have lower ability will fail these subjects. There's a lot more content in Triple which won't be accessible for some pupils. Is that fair?

I think that the idea of combined science in general is ridiculous and puts high achievers at an active disadvantage for A level & further study. DD’s school only teaches separate sciences as they fully admitted that combined is too watered down. The vast majority of her year group took all 3 at GCSE.

🤣🤣🤣
And back in the real world they will just use supply or PE teachers to cover Physics

Ha as if they'll do this. They already have loads of staff teaching out of specialism across all subjects. If all else fails schools just recruit more PE teachers and expect them to fill in wherever they're needed. Just don't mention that at interview.

My teenager was reading the article in the Times this morning and was really surprised as most, if not all of her year are doing separate sciences for GSCE and again most going on to do A level science. I don't think she realised the school was such an outlier.

Double award is, in most schools, still taught as three separate sciences. It is just 20-30% less content than doing triple award.

Its name and the way the grades are awarded confuse a lot of people.

It is only single science that is combined and worth one grade.

Most people aren’t designed to do STEM A levels or a STEM career. It is a vacuous target, like 50% going to universities.

The only way to hit it is to dumb down the courses or make unis glorified schools in terms of academic challenge (which many are now).

They will need to pay physics teachers their market value - just accept that they could earn more in another field so their value is higher.