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

Perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up on the Sciences question. I think that a good school should force encourage able kids to do at least:

1. core (eng, maths, sci)
2. a humanity
3. a language
4. an art
5. a technology.

This will cover bases and allow opportunities for most kids, and mean that no-one's choices are overly skewed by the child's / the school's / the parents' preferences.

It is a question that I have been asking at open evenings too. My dd1 is very creative, and I doubt very much that she will select sciences, although things can be change.

However, I also have a dd2, and I would very much like my children to attend the same school. She is showing lots of signs of being a science geek, so it is important for me that 3 sciences are offered.

Civil - I was talking about GCSE option choices in general, not specifically science. My ds is doing triple, as he was in the group chosen to do it.

Some kids do drop academic subjects at GCSE, I've had tutor groups where girls capable of good academic achievement did childcare and hairdressing, which was why I mentioned it.

The thing is though, the vast majority of us never have to face the issue of whether to dictate to our children what to do or not because in the main children make sensible choices for themselves with maybe a little advice from parents and schools over any implications.

I'd like to think I wouldn't dictate to my children what to do, but then they have both made very reasonable choices themselves. I was happy for any quantity of sciences between 2 and 4 - one chose 4 and the other 2 (but independently increased to 3+, though we didn't know if that would work or not at the time of the choice). I would have pushed quite hard for a language to be included if either had tried to opt out of that (they didn't) and I guess I'd like to have seen at least one humanity (but that too happened by itself). Obviously I like to think I'd have reasoned it out with them while leaving them the ultimate choice if they'd wanted to do some wierd selection of off-beat subjects, but if faced with a recalcitrant but very capable teenager intent on taking basket-weaving BTEC with media studies and horse care, who knows what I might have resorted to!

In short, I think some parental dictation over choices is OK in a few cases, but the parents need to be reasonable too in what they are trying to enforce.

I disagree with Scaryteacher - Universities take into account that not all schools offer three sciences and are't that interested in what GCSEs but what grades.

I studied Engineering at Cambridge. I had done three separate sciences for GCSE. This was obviously a help to me when I did science A-levels, but most of the others at my college doing engineering had only a two science award.

There is a bit of a myth going round that children are allowed to drop academic subjects at GCSE. In my experience, academic children are never allowed to drop anything!

I agree scaryteacher, with uni places becoming more and more competitive in all subjects they are looking at gcse results as well as a-level.

My kids are only 4 and 2 but I'd like to think that when they are 12ish I will try to encourage them to take sensible subjects for gcse. But I don't want to turn into one of the parents that teachers don't like who is overly pushy and starts every converstation with "as I am a teacher with a physics degree I know that my darling child who is perfect in every way must do triple science because they are a genius"

'I am flabbergasted by parents who intend to dictate to their children what GCSEs they will take.'

You have to steer the kids into what options they want to do, and you should imo start this discussion in Year 8, so you are prepared for options. If left to their own devices, some might not choose a wide spread of GCSEs, or may want to drop a language, or do lots of arty stuff, or end up with an ill thought out set of options that are very heavily course work based.

If you think your child may do A levels and then Uni, you need to make sure that they are doing a good breadth of GCSEs (preferably with the majority solid academic subjects), which gives them the chance to do IB or A levels. You also need to factor into the equation that GCSE subjects and results can be taken into consideration for Uni offers. If you are applying to read an academic subject at a good Uni, and GCSE grades are the decider on who gets an offer, then GCSE hairdressing and childcare isn't going to get you that offer as opposed to a candidate with 2 languages, history and 3 sciences for example.

Teenagers don't like some of the advice that parents give, and they whinge about it, but that goes with the territory of having a teenager. My job is to make sure my ds has the right set of GCSEs to enable him to do A levels and then Uni. That hasn't meant ructions, we discussed the options, we all agreed on them, and we are all happy.

I agree with all the comments about both the schools subject offerings and the childrens interests changing.
DDs school had a change in option choices from last year that is giving the academic kids one less option. It

A language used to be compulsory for both the double and triple science paths, with the former having 4 option choices, the latter 3.
Last year it change such that the "doubles" only get 3 further option choices. The triples still get 3 choices but there is no longer a compulsory language in the core.
We were told this is because a lot of kids that are good at science are no good at languages. They alsSIDSid if languages were dropped in favour of science and it looked like becoming a problem for uni applications, there would be facilities in the 6th form to take a language gcse. We personally would not want to chance that.
Never did find out why they now end up with an option less.

I agree Cat64, I don't expect the current options to be the same in 5 years time or so. But to me it's an indication of whether a school is geared up for children who might be heading in quite an academic direction, double/triple science isn't the end of the world. Nor is just one language at GCSE, languages are easy to add to later. But it's the general sense that the school has expectations that the brighter kids might want to read medicine say or NatSci, and that the options strucure will permit the sorts of GCSE that will facilitate this.

The last point of your first post!

I think that last point is important Debi.

faileddoctor in double science (although as I said in the last post it's not called that now) you do 1 module of bio, chem and phys plus an investigative skills assessment (that might varies with exam boards) and they make up 25% each of Core Science.
Then you do another module in each subject plus another ISA and they also add up to give Additional Science. So you get 2 grades for 2 science GCSEs.

Different schools teach it in different ways. We all teach 2 sciences so I'm doing bio just now and will do phys after their 1st exam in Nov.

Interesting that some of you are saying your kids didn't chose triple science because it was an option. I'm a science teacher and our top sets do triple but just in the same time as everyone else does core and additional (it's not called double anymore). As a department we are talking about pushing for it to be put into the options so they can have more time for the triple science but maybe that'd put some off.
Our top sets (and those who express an interest in a-level) in year 9 start the gcse course in January too to give extra time.

And from talking to the 6th form college we think that if you want to do a-level sciences that having done triple is a definate advantage but that 2 very good grades is better than 3 good grades.

So sidetracking a bit, if you do a double, you still get taught all 3 subjects. But what are the 2 marks for. Just an avarage of all 3 subjects and then you get 2 of the same marks? Or do they combine eg pysics/chemistry and biology separate?

Wilfshelf I think it's different at GCSE options and A level options, in terms of pushing/suggesting/forcing. It would, I think, be a bit careless as a parent to let a 13 year old child choose a set of useless GCSEs.

A level is a bit different. they are old enough to have a clue about the world by then, and about what they want from it.

Actually (recent expertise in what a Technology College offers here), technology subjects also include electronics for the geeky academic types.

our proposed school is this sort ("oh, we said, looking round, it's a Catering College." we'd thought technology meant IT...)

but as it offers the technology subjects as well as triple sci, double langs, 2 Eng, history and geog, I'm not too bothered. also all my dds are (currently, primary age) rather good at things like woodwork and other craft so I think a technology GCSE won't actually be a burden to them.

Until a few years ago schools offering triple were in the minority, so it was fine to go on to science A levels with double. Now more schools are offering triple it may become more expected.
Am interested to see what they do with the science GCSEs now - the Core and Additional route was not good preparation for A level, in my opinion.
The dual option is still recognisably split into Bio, Chem and Phys units, although how these are taught depend on the school. They may have a specialist teacher for each subject, they may not.

I bloody well wish my parents had guided me by, instead of gently suggesting my A level choices perhaps weren't the best ones for my abilities, actually banging my head on the table until I listened to them. At 16 - and earlier - they did actually know me better than I knew myself. I was so caught up in being affected and 'different' I made entirely the wrong choices.

I trust DS1 to make the 'right' choices though. I guess, later, I'm gonna have to deal with it and suck up when he doesn't, right?

and some may say it does.

Yes, but you are not guiding her, you are telling her

and some might say that a "rounded education" doesn't HAVE to contain all three separate sciences

but as a child who doesn't know what they want to do a parent should be there to guid them to take choices which will maximise what they can do in the future, ensuring a balance of subjects and a complete rounded education (both arty subjects and full sciences)

you don't know she will regret them though

perhaps she will regret that your narrow attitude limited her in pursuing something that would have made her happier

I have met the odd artist who had "a brain"

they are supposed to be the child's choices, not the parent's

Another point - when choosing schools - if the school is a 'specialist' school the pupils will have to take a GCSE in part of the specialism - so if specialist language then all pupils have to take a language.

I have no problem with that but if a school is a specialist technolorgy school every pupil will have to take a technology GS - so Food tech, Textiles, Resistant materials or Graphics.

With the core curriculum subjects taking up a huge chunk of time, as well as the school insisting on their specialist subjects, there is not much time left over for additional subjects such as an extra language, geography, history, classics, art or drama.

If the school has double specialism this minimises the pupils choices even further.

Ah - to clarify - DD has a brain but gven half a chance would not use it. If the choice was handed to her she'd like to do GCSE hair and nail care with perhaps a bit of art thrown in.

she also has no idea what she wants to do higher up.

Insisted and not up for discussion was perhaps strongly worded but I am not going to sit back and let her make decisions at 13 I know she will regret.