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

With my two it was also clear there was a strong likelyhood of them wanting to do separate sciences from a young age. When we asked about the availability we were told by the head that quite often even sciencey students opted for double to make room for more other things at GCSE and indeed this is what ds opted to do. However, he taught himself the extra to make it up to 3 GCSEs in separate sciences and to be honest there wasn't all that much extra to learn & I really don't think a child would be very disadvantaged by not having done it when embarking on A levels (certainly not a child who is very sciencey anyway). The thing to watch for is if schools start to mandate separate sciences to go on to the science A-levels however. There isn't a need for them to, but just a few are beginning to - if that becomes more common then triple science becomes much more important. In any case I think the days when many schools didn't offer it as an option are now over, although it is still usually only the more able that get that option.

oh good:)

Greensleeves - Trubert already clarified and I already apologised for getting confused :)

Trillian the OP didn't but FerrisBueller did:

"It was one of those not up for discussion converstaions - DD - you will be doing separate sciences"

which I find a bit

but I wouldn't want my two to go to a school where they didn't have the option either, they are both quite sciency (as far as you can tell, at 8 and 6)

Trillian don't you understand irony? You are also very rude. My eldest is only 5 and I clearly don't think every problem in the UK is down to the fact that every kid in this country doesn't have access to 3 science gcses - what is wrong with you? I was just very surprised to find that many schools don't offer it now - given what the universities are saying about not being able to get decent science intake, not to mention my many friends who still work in science and bemoan the lack of decent graduates coming out for PHDs and the fact that most people eff off to the states as fast as they can if they are any good. A possible link with the lack of science education in schools doesn't seem beyond the pale to me.

I have no idea what you are on about with double and triple candidates etc but I would have thought that if you were interested/bright enough to want to do science A levels and therefore committing to a demanding specialisation at quite a young age, it would presumably be an advantage to know as much about the subject as possible before starting and I can't see the point of starting at a disadvantage to some of the other kids who had already done more than you, at whatever level.

I did O levels and IB so have no idea how it all is supposed to work now but it all sounds ridiculously complicated now - either you are bright/motivated enough to do certain subject or you're not, surely. I would never try and force my children to do subjects they didn't want to do but i will certainly make sure they go to schools where all academic options are open to them. I wouldn't consider a school that didn't offer 3 separate science options at GCSE or whatever it is called when they get there, and certainly not because of the justification that it is more work for them or they can scrape into A level science by doing less.

Science GCSE is changing next year

However

When double science was the norm it had to provide enough to start A levels

Now ... we have students taking triple (this means that they get a GCSE in each of Bio, Chem, and Phys) ... we only had a small class first time round and they have gone into sixth form this year ... they are now waiting for the others to catch up

Since then we have had substantial numbers taking triple and will only be allowing triples to take A level sciences ... that way the A level can start quickly and greater depth can be included

So ... if the secondary school does not have triple science ... is your child staying their for sixth or might they transfer to a school where they are not able to do Sciences because they did not do triple

I would absolutely insist on this (DS1 is very mathematically and scientifically inclined and it was also obvious from Y4) and did so: our local comp was great except it didn't offer this until v recently so we quizzed them hard at open days. They now do, so we were reassured.

I have no problem if he shifts his interests, in fact we're all delighted he is now, in Y7, loving Art and English for the first time...

BTW there is a huge gap if you only do double award and go onto A'level. Triple leads in much more nicely. If there are triple and double students in a class it is the double students who struggle most; even though double is supposed to be enough for A'level.

But GCSEs are changing next year anyway.

Separates consist of all the work of 'science' plus 1/3 extra content per science. A child can go on to do separates a levels with either qualification. To be honest separates show an interest on science at a younger age and little more. Therefore I wouldn't worry too much if separates are not offered ( although their presence is usually an indicator of a higher proportion of academic pupils.). Applied science and btec science do not allow students to pursue the separates at a level but they can do an applied science a level. In my school some of the most academic students choose not to do separates and follow the science course. There is also a snobbery value to separates.

When DD2 ( now yr9, soon to chose options) was in yr6 she wad very keen on science, and looked highly likely to be looking at a career in that direction.
We chose a school that offered triple science for this reason. Top sets get the choice between double and triple but it is at the expense of another option.

She is now in a quandry, as she will probably want to do chemistry A level, but there are not enough gcse options left to do everything else she wants if she does opt for triple science. No longer so set on science career.

Good to have the choice, but a shame it cannot be aneztea as it does limit the breadth.

Guess timetable clashes could be her deciding factor, as she won't want to drop french or music.

x-posts gerontius, but I agree exactly!

Think what I'm trying to get at is our neighbouring post-16 college where most of our leavers go to study A levels and IB's etc make NO distinction between two A grades for double science and A's for triple science, except that it is for 3 GCSEs instead of 2.
Lots of extra work for the child though for not much extra knowledge seems my impression although its early days here and we are only a few years in.

No, doing separate sciences is not a "prereq" for being a doctor or scientist. Doing science A levels is, and you can very easily do them with double award science.

runningmonkey- they only 'have to' offer it for pupils who achieve level 6 or above at KS3 and then some small schools can ship kids over to a neighbouring larger school to study it or offer some lessons after school.

As a smallish secondary, only 11-16 we thought about all the possibilities for a few years as the reality is that few governors (or other staff) want to sacrifice curriculum time and breadth to fit another science opion in. As somebody else said, its since the SATs have gone that we have found a way, by starting our triple science groups in year 9 (although they can't take exams till year 10). Technically there is a choice that parents make but if the teacher assessment is too low they can't do it so we ended up with our top two sets doing it.

As someone else said, double award (doing 'additional' science gives you a solid basis for A-level science. Triple award Chemistry bascially goes over most of AS chemistry so lots who have done triple find much of Y12 Chemistry quite boring.

In the past I have found that the thing most parents are bothered about is the fact that it is an extra GCSE than those who do double. And/or they particularly disliked one of the disciplines at school and want their DC 'to be able to not take physics as I hated it....' type thing. What they don't realise is that most average-sized schools are simply not going to offer it as 3 separate options like this, the timetabling would be a nightmare!

Preghead - in my school (bog standard comp, not special or anything) everyone had separate lessons for Bilogy, Chemistry, and Physics, and separate exams, even if they did double award science. The only difference was the volume of material. Taking double award did not prevent them from taking science A-levels if they wanted.

Not really sure why I am bothering to reply to someone who uses phrases like "No wonder this country is going to the dogs"

For me, the possibility of doing triple science GCSE is a "must have" (oldest dd is 10 so I have been questioning local comp on this).

It doesn't mean they have to do triple science, but our families include many of a scientific bent, and it's important for me that there is this option.

Double languages at GCSE is also important to me, it doesn't mean the dds will have to take two languages, but I want that option to stay open for them til they are 14.

OK, sorry Trubert.

I am not sure whether it is worth worrying about now as other have said but I have to say I completely agree with you and was actually astounded to find out recently that mosts schools only offer combined science GCSE. I certainly want my (admitedly still young) children to have the option og doing biology, physics and chemistry like I did. Surely this is still a prereq for anyone that wants to be a doctor or scientist? No wonder this country is going to the dogs etc etc

I was actually talking about FerrisBueller.

(I'm not trying to start a fight here, just clarifying that I'm not making assumptions about the OP).

Where does the OP say she will insist that her children do triple science?

She simply says she wants to choose a school where triple science is an option.

At my school no-one got a choice of how many science GCSEs they took, it was triple for the top set, single for the bottom set, and double for everyone else.

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

It makes me regress turn into a rebellious teenager screeching 'You're not the boss of me'.

I doubt you can tell at age 9 and 7 which career path they can take.

You also don't know what the Science offerings will be then. We are about to change specifications again, after only four years. By the time your LO is choosing GCSEs, they will probably have changed again.

I would say (as a Science teacher) don't sweat the small stuff.

It used to be that schools did SATs in Y9 and then did GCSEs in Y10&11. Now that Y9 SATs have been scrapped, some schools start the GCSE syllabus in Y9 so doing triple science is more do-able than it used to be.
However, AFAIK science A Levels can be done from a base of double science, they do not need triple science.
As Greeny says, it's down to the child's choice/aptitude.
Also I would be loathe to do extra science if it meant another subject got sacrificed; at GCSE you want breadth, not depth.