Triple Science - am I right to make this a must-have?

Novamum I think you need to talk to the teacher again and get her to clarify what the problem is as his grades look fine to me.

I am a scientist and I only have double science GCSE. Triple really isn't necessary. By the time they've done A levels and a degree or two GCSEs are a long and distant memory.

I am a scientist and I only have double science GCSE. Triple really isn't necessary. By the time they've done A levels and a degree or two GCSEs are a long and distant memory.

This is my fisrt time on this site. I could do with help. My eldest is in year 10 He was on the triple science course. He got dropped to double this week. He has some health problems and has low attendance (nothing unauthorised). About 10 days ago his teacher did speak to me to say dropping him was a thought. He doesn't want to drop. She said he would have to improve his grades and attendance. For the first time ever he began to make sure he had painkillers on him and took his asthma medicine. He got earlier nights and revised hard for a mock. In the mock he got A* and took no time off. His other grades so far are A,A,A,C in the various papers he's already sat. Like I said on Tuesday he was dropped. He's devastated. The attendance i can't argue with but how do I explain that his grades are not good enough. Why aren't they good enough?

Being a science teacher, even i find what you say about drama as a little hard to take!

A timetable should be balanced. Fitting in triple science, with the loss of Arts subjects is wrong as we need all aspects of our knowledge and culture nurtured and cared for in our society.

Our school has moved to a 2 year key stage 3, giving three years to GCSE subjects. This allows for more flexible timetabling and has allowed us to offer triple much more readily. Seems to be working well at our mixed comprehensive.

Yes the level 6 thing is definitly right. See here; www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/subjects/science/ I bet there are schools that don't offer it though!

Lydwatt makes a good point in that triple science is hard to timetable. Our school does not give anymore time to triple then double so it only gets offered to the top set, and then its a real struggle. It does mean it doesn't take up another option but also means its really hard going.

Regarding whether an A* in drama is better than a C in physics, as a physics teacher I'm maybe biased. However, this is a really good question and sadly it sums up a lot or what is wrong in education.

At uni, places are offered on a points basis with the highest scores getting the most points, in the vast majority of cases no weight is given to the subject taken so whilst the sciences/maths are deemed to be amongst the hardest if not the hardest A levels, and media studies one of the easiest, a A in media studies is worth more points than a B in physics!

This is really sad as it does not encourage students to take on more academically rigorous subjects.

I am a science teacher and the science course now is taught as a single, double or triple GCSE award. each stage is made up of equal amounts of Biology, chemistry and physics.
This happened because, historically 20 years ago The Government decided that students needed a general grounding in all sciences. this is beginning to swing back again to a more flexible system. General science has been the norm for all this time.
Most schools will offer double science, from which you can easily do A levels in any of the sciences. Triple is harder to timetable as it needs more time than the timetable can fit. Many schools only offer triple to the brightest for this reason and it is taught in a rush (sometimes less good preparation for A level). Offering GCSE courses in year 9 is a way round this.
However, I would base my choice of school on how it feels when you go on a tour of the school. courses change all the time and there is no telling what the future holds

I would not let this be the decider. Some schools push three sciences as if it is a badge of honour but don't get great results or shoehorn brighter kids into sciences where they might do better in other subjects. Both 2 oldest ds have had to do triple science. T year 6 I would have probably said this would suit them as they breezed Mathhs. Now it is great for one not for the other whose linguistic abilities have soared in the third form at secondary school and is pushed to do his third language in a twilight class as he is doing three sciences. You dont know what areas your dcs will blossom in.

Am pondering this dictum by scaryteacher:

"My job is to make sure my ds has the right set of GCSEs to enable him to do A levels and then Uni."

Did you mean your job as the mother of this particular teenager? Or your job as the mother of a teenager?

Just interested, because I remember my parents struggling a little over this one. In the event, it turned out their attitude (of course our bright children should be encouraged to go to uni) was right in exactly 50% of the cases: I and my younger brother did go to uni and it was absolutely the right thing for us. My other two brothers did other things (manual work, started own business) and it turned out to have been right for them. But my elder bro did struggle for many years because my parents' assumptions, though perfectly reasonable on paper, were not actually right for the person he was. He should have been firmer with them (no, I am not doing French, yes I am taking this job).

Out of my two, I am keeping my options open, but would find it very likely that uni is right for one of them and not for the other. And tbh as a university teacher, I do not want to see the wrong kind of student in my class. And by the wrong kind of student I mean one who isn't there because he wanted to be, but because it was expected of him. A Third is not a great qualification these days.

I still think that doing triple takes up too much time, to the detriment of another subject.
Don't forget that, if kids really are that keen on science, they can always read beyond the curriculum in their own time! GCSE students are getting to the age where they should be self-starters, esp if they are thinking of studying it for A Level or beyond.

Is that level 6 thing definately right? Dd1 is at the start of year 8 and just got level 7 in a test.

Willmum - meant to add re the Sats results, level 6 sounds quite low. All of the top set at DDs non- selective comp were at least that by the end of yr8.

That's intersting Willmum- never knew double would offer very little actual science. Quote sad really.

I know DD would prefer to do some real science than an extra option choice, which woul be either Drama, Rs or History.

What will be a difficult one though, is when they are weaker in one of the three sciences. How would say a C in physics compare with an A* in Drama?

Triple award will give a seperate grade for Bio, Chem and Phys so essentially is single sciences. There are several issues here.
If you are worried about science A Levels and thinking that triple give a better base then whilst it may be true that they will have a better understanding (or at least will have covered more content)they are not necessary for movement to A Levels and a bright child can do well regardless of which they take.

If however you want them to actually do some science then triple is the way to go. It is the extra modules that come with doing triple that actually contain some science (certainly for physics anyway). Sadly much of the content in core and to a lesser extent double award science, is to a large extent very wooly. E.g there is more focus now on dicussing the social implications of taking drugs than the effects on the body.

To be honest, if you think they will be this way inclined then I would certainly want that option. Double award is fine for the vast majority of students, many who will not take sciences to a higher level. It is also suitable to go on to A level after doing double award and colleges etc will not refuse to take students with double award as that is all that some schools offer. However, thoses that do triple are certainly at an advantage when starting A levels and I think they need all the help they can get as the gap between GCSE and A Level is huge.

Having said all of that, all schools SHOULD be offering triple award to students getting level 6 or above in sats. However, since y9 don't do sats anymore then I'm not sure if this is still valid? I know some schools don't do is as they can't/won't get enough specalist teachers. So all in all I would certainly want to my children to have that option and if you think that they have or will have any inclination to take sciences beyond GCSE then enure they avoid BTEC like the plague.

Senua

"it can also be 13 subjects but when you dig deeper you find it is something like 9 full GCSE and 4 half-courses."

I was thinking more of the ICT etc that counts as two option choices but is supposedly equivalent to 4 GCSEs.

But by the time you count the PSEC, RS, PE and other core stuff with no qualification, they probably will be doing 13 different subjects.

I don't remember such a rigid core in my O" level days. Just double English, Maths and a language. And no-one did more than 9 at our grammar turned conp.

As for the triple science- great grounding but a shame when it has to be at the expense of another option.

I feel another options thread starting before the early spring rush,

[grin]@circular. I forgive you!

"I know some kids do end up with 13+ GCSEs bit that's usually when they start choosing the non- academic double/ quadruple awards"

It can also be 13 subjects but when you dig deeper you find it is something like 9 full GCSE and 4 half-courses.

At DS's school the top set for Science can now do 5 single science GCSEs - Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy and Geology.

I think there does need to be some subject balance but unless a child has a real interest and flair, I don't see a point in doing more than one art or tech type subject within school hours. DD will probably do BTEC Dance which is equivalent to 2 GCSEs, but the school teach it outside of school hours.

Apologies "semis" should have read "senua".
That's auto correct and trying to type on a mobile on a moving train.

Semis - that's an interesting split.

Problem is, there is now so much in the "core" that there may not be 4 further choices.

At DD1s school, they get 8 GCSEs from the core if they include triple science. So only 3 further options. If DD gets all her first choices, then she won't do a technology (unless ICT in the core counts).

I know some kids do end up with 13+ GCSEs bit that's usually when they start choosing the non- academic double/ quadruple awards.

I think it is great you are thinking this through now. My dd has just started high school. Only 60 from 180 get to do all 3 science gcses. The 60 are selected from what looks like almost constant assessment! Although schools can change, year 4 isn't that far off year 7. Go to a few open days next September when your ds is in year 5. I wish we had done that rather than wait until yr 6.

Interesting discussion about GCSE choices. My daughter had four option choices. She chose French, Latin and History for the first three and the fourth was going to be Spanish but at the last minute she switched to Art, after a very persuasive presentation from the Art Dept. We were a bit surprised but her reports in Art had been OK and we (naively) assumed that if the school thought she would get a lower grade in Art than Spanish they would have said something. She didn't really enjoy the Art GCSE and got a C (I think she was lucky to get that, to be honest). She would almost certainly have got at least a B if she'd stuck with the Spanish, but more importantly I think it would have been more enjoyable for her.

On the point of science GCSE: the terminology is confusing! They all do triple science, in the sense that they all study topics from biology, chemistry and physics - but depending on ability/options choices, they might end up with one, two or three GCSEs in science. One GCSE means one module per science, and so on.

cat64 if we have students who are sure they don't want to do any science at a-level and are very keen on 'arty' subjects we will encourage them not to do triple science. Mainly because those subjects often involve a lot of soursework and as we aren't able to give extra time to the triple scientists we don't feel we should burden them with extra work.

They should offer that but often the timetable blocking doesn't allow it. Ds is not doing an art or a technology because he would have had to drop a language. I have rashly promised a cookery course somewhere once GCSEs are over, as he had to drop food and nutrition.