Advice needed re Year 9 ds being put in too early for GCSE science

Year 11s.

They had (it's being knocked on the head now) an opportunity to sit the exam in January & again in June of year 11 - some schools also sit one of the exams, often one of the Eng Lit papers, in June of year 10.

In theory this means you bung everyone in for the appropriate tier (Foundation - targets grades C downwards, or Higher for C upwards) in January, see who fails, & then put them in for a re-take in June.

In practice, if you're gaming the system & focusing on the 5 A-C measure, just about everyone (all but the obvious A/A candidates) gets put in for Foundation because it's generally seen as an easier way to get a C.

You then put all your Ds & Es in for another crack at Foundation, & all your 'got a C, but has a higher target' kids in for Higher - although as explained above quite a lot of them think 'sod that!'.

The Gs, Fs, Bs, As & A*s get left in peace.

By the end of this process, every kid who is capable of getting a C should have one (the borderliners who fail in January get booster classes, off timetable etc).

This looks great in the league table, but it certainly doesn't mean everyone gets the grade they should...

Yes, frankinsensible.

I had a group last year of 'able but idles' - lowest English set in higher stream. Mostly very much capable of grade B.

All entered early for Foundation tier English Language, the idea being they'd bag a 'safe C' & go on to do Higher in the summer.

First part of plan worked flawlessly.

& then, pretty much to a man (overwhelmingly boys in this group), they cheerfully & unabashedly informed me that having got the C they needed to get into college, they had no intention of doing a stroke of work for the Higher paper.

Some were willing to have a punt on the day, some asked not to be entered for it & some announced their intention of not turning up/spoiling their papers if school insisted.

& you know, this was a perfectly logical response on their part - why graft to take another exam, taking time away from your socialising revision for other subjects, when you've already got the grade you need for the next stage of your education?

Didn't matter much to school, either - our 5 A*-C was great.

But those kids certainly didn't get the grades they were capable of.

Like I said, perverse incentives.

Oh and don't be fooled by the number of As.
They count D BTECs as GCSEs and they are nothing like the same.

Yes: although the league tables are now including more detail, the measures people seem to look at are the % of 5A-C inc English and Maths, % of 5A-C, and the number of points. The last two are boosted by kids getting lots of Cs.

lljkk I don't think that is what the OP wants - she just wants her DS to be given a fair chance to get decent grades in his GCSEs. So if the school insists on such a mad system of exam entry then they need to put the resources into supporting the DCs through it and helping to compensate for their lack of maturity.

All the schools where I live take nearly all GCSEs at the end of year 11 when DCs are 16 and get very good results because that is the way the system is designed.

I don't see how you lot can change the whole school timetable.

Do you want the school to set an individual timetable, just for your DC, so that they can study all subjects right to the end of yr11? (Mind boggles).

I am trying to figure out how anyone could stomp up to a school and demand that their child be taught differently to all the others.

chloe74 'This is the way that schools fiddle the system to make it look like they are getting more A*-C grades and the child's education is collateral damage. If he gets a 'C' grade I imagine they will then make him drop the subject and spend the extra time getting him a 'C' in another subject. If he gets a D they will keep him resitting the exam until he gets the C.

He should be allowed to study the subject until Y11 and get the best grade possible. I would come down on the school forcefully and stop them doing this nonsense. Do not listen to the teachers platitudes, they are only interested in making themselves look good and have little interest in whats best for an individual child. If you have to I would consider legal advice.'

I partially agree with you, chloe74 - it is indeed about getting as many >C grades as possible, as this is a key league table measure. & yes, it does result in multiple re-takes & modules at the expense of breadth of knowledge.

Where you are mistaken is in thinking that teachers chose or like this system. It's what's known as a perverse incentive.

So you wouldn't catch me issuing 'platitudes' about what a great idea it is, as an English teacher, but you might expect to hear some from the Head or the Chair of Governors.

As for 'stopping' the school, or 'legal advice' - I honestly don't think the OP can compel her ds's school to change their curriculum, which is in line with the exam board's own rules...but I'd certainly be expressing concern if it were my dc.

Not least because the guidelines on re-sits etc are currently in such a state of confusion that, frankly, it isn't unknown for departments to drop a bollock & suddenly discover that they've breached a new rule which renders a re-sit impossible/an early result inadmissable...

I see the problem but I think you have nothing to lose by going to the school with the evidence (and include the ofsted report because that is very firm on how ofsted will view schools compromising children's chances, if memory serves, and anything else you can find)

After all, it is not rocket science - the schools could have guessed before quite so much data was out, as many parents did, that 13 year olds will do better if they wait till 16 to take an exam designed for that age. If the league tables were focussed on kids getting 8 A/A* (I am not suggesting they should be), then it would not be in the school's interest to do this - it is a statistical quirk. They must have known all along I think.

I don't think it will make them change their policy overnight, but it might make them feel they need to explain to you and provide as much extra support as possible, perhaps? And give you a good long chance to hear the head and deputy explain why they do this.

Personally, I am afraid I agree about doing English Literature in year 9. There is a huge leap in maturity and just, well, in being able to cope with Stuff.

Also, the modular system and rules about retakes are changing - are you sure he will be able to retake?

Poor kids. What a slog they are making it.

This is entirely for the benefit of the school and not your child.

Only exceptionally advanced DCs will get top grades in year 9. GCSEs are designed for 16 year olds and there is a world of difference in maturity between 14 and 16.

I think I would want to know how its all going to pan out over years 9, 10 and 11. If he's taking English Literature at the end of year 9 (it sounds like he is from the work already covered) then what next - English language in year 10 and then that's it for English?

Once I knew exactly what exams were being taken when then I'd make sure my DC had the relevant revision guides so that they could prepare properly. If it was a subject that was key to what they wanted to do at A level I might even consider tutoring to give them the best chance possible of getting a good grade.

DS is in year 11 and has just turned 16, he's taking English literature this year and will hopefully do really well. He wants to take it at A level as well but I don't think he would if he'd rushed through it all at 13.

Its odd to take English Literature early frankinsensible as the analytical skills needed develop with maturity and as you say what is the point in rushing through it.

I'm not sure what the answer is though if the school are set on this way of teaching.

The point should be that by studying a subject for up to 5 years (from the start of senior school) and then doing an exam in it is that you have had 5 years of accumulated understanding, plus the advantage of insight from other subjects that overlap. If you do the exams after only a year or so of study (particularly in a language) means to have very little time to assimilate it.

The current system really does force teaching to the test rather than the wider subject. We really need to get to the point where you study a subject widely, and the exams are sufficiently well designed to allow you to display your wide knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Also taking exams at an older stage means you have more maturity and more experience of life which should improve your performance in exams. If nothing else it also means you have had a couple more years writing in your own language and so hopefully will be able to put your thoughts down more coherently (which would have the added bonus of making the exams easier to mark).

The problem is that if you want to have a quick and cheap marking system then you have to lean towards multiple choice and restricted curricula (ie everyone answering the same set of questions). And you have to then have a set criteria of which knowledge you deem important enough to be included.

The whole system makes it very difficult to spend any time on something that is interesting even if it is a bit off on a tangent.

This discussion has strayed a lot from the original question. i hope you manage to come up with something you are both happy with.

As twoterrors says

Unless he's online for an a* statistically he will do worse if he does his exams a year early

This benefits the school not the pupil and is opposed by ofsted

As twoterrors says

Unless he's online for an a* statistically he will do worse if he does his exams a year early

This benefits the school not the pupil and is opposed by ofsted

See this www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Early-entries-GCSEs.pdf

It took about 30 secs to find. Schools absolutely know about this. They are gaming the league tables, and it is not in the children's interests (in general - of course there are always exceptions). Ofsted has also criticised this practice. I would present the school with this and other evidence, and ask how entering children so early is in their interests when the evidence is that even with resits they will get worse grades? That's without even considering the extra stress and anxiety.

Some quotes:
"The main argument against early entry is that statistically, early entry
candidates perform worse overall than those who do not enter early, even
when taking account of resits (see below for precise figures)."

"The statistical evidence so far indicates that for lower achieving pupils, there is
little discernable benefit in early entry other than increasing opportunities to retake before the end of KS4 which still does not improve the overall comparative
result. For pupils who achieve level 4 or above at KS2 (and would therefore be
expected to achieve grade A*-C at GCSE) the average final grade is lower for
early entrants. Higher attaining pupils are therefore being disadvantaged by
entering early and not achieving their full potential."

Very good luck

He did 4 A levels so did the other 3 at one sitting (the usual A Level requirement) ! Most schools, even if they sit some early, will still do 6 in one year, so doing some early is not bad in itself. What is not helpful is if they do 4 in year 9, 4 in year 10 & 4 in year 11, which one poor kid I help had done. He had all A* but found it hard to find a course to take him. The Unis say they need proof that students can cope with the rigour of the course and of taking many exams at the same time. It is still possible (above named lad is now at Imperial), but it took hours of persuasion to get them to accept him. It is not impossible, but requires more of a fight..

What I described, btw, E+M+science+2/3 options means 6-8 completed at same time, anyway. Just that there's another 3-4 GCSEs done in earlier years, too.

I'm pretty sure that Norfolk state school pupils have no choice. So either all Norfolk school leavers from state system are banned from all RG/Oxbridge, or there is some flexibility after all.

I am certain that Oxbridge and Russell Group do not penalise candidates who have no choice at their school. A number of candidates from DD's school have gone to Russell Group uni's recently; a candidate also got into medicine at Cambridge (and took one of his 4 A levels in the January) and a couple of others to Oxford.