What is the argument for children doing their GCSEs a year or two early?

sorry page 20

cream - no I am not. According to this see page 20, it says exactly what I have just quoted.

That's heartening Teacher, and you would hope that most schools would be continuing unchanged like that.

Ihadadream,

I know of 1 head in a very difficult school who is carrying on with early entry, despite the effect that it will have on (already dire due to entrenched socioeconomic issues affecting the school) league table position - their position is that in their experience early entry gives some kids a taste of success and leads to a better attitude to final exams (even at the very basic level that more of them turn up after Year 11 study leave to actually take the exams).

DCs school does not do any AS levels : because it stops at 16.

I have had issues with the lack of A levels in schools round here, but now that I have a year 11 child am greatly relieved that early exams are not an issue

Will you still be doing this under the new regime kimmi? It seems as if it would still be in the children's interests to carry on, but not helpful to the school's league table position. I think that schools' reaction to this change will tell us a lot - in theory, if they were always doing the best for their pupils, then none of them will change their strategy. If they do, then this can only be because they are, or were, prioritising their league table position.

Thanks for that cream teas.

I think I'll be happy if DS gets any GCSEs. Early or not is such a red herring. Not lack of ability but rather lack of good attitude that holds him back; spread the GCSEs out over time & we increase the odds that some happens in a time window when he can be asked.

Interesting one. I took all of my O-levels a year early - accelerated a year - and Maths, French and English Language 2 years early. Then did Additional Maths and A/O French with my main O-level sitting.

The earliest sittings stopped me from being bored, especially as I then went on to more challenging qualifications in the same subjects. The 1 year acceleration overall was academically excellent and socially a disaster....

DS may well do Music a year early, then be given a choice to go on to take AS at the end of year 11 OR simply do Music an an extra subject in Year 10 but have a normal timetabled load in year 11. I think it's an interesting approach from a 'minority' subject - in a school where virtually no GCSEs are normally taken early - to get some pupils who are very able across the board, including in music, to obtain a qualification in music that reflects their abilities without having to drop another GCSE course.

We have used an early sitting for b/c grade pupils in maths to get a C on the foundation paper (it seems to be easier to get a C on foundation than higher) and then have year 11 to work on higher topics and give them the opportunity to get a B on the higher paper.

Missscatterbrain you are misquoting. It actually says

'Some schools are now entering pupils early for GCSE, AS-level and
A-level. You should be aware that some universities or their individual
subject departments may want to see that you have taken a number of
advanced level qualifications all at the same time; for example, they may want to see three A-levels taken in Year 13'

Early entry concerns are about A levels not GCSE.

League tables pure & simple. Give has now said the first result must stand as final grade even if students retake.

From Russell Group Universities' Informed Choices booklet:

"A number of institutions ask that grades and number of subjects are achieved at one sitting. Some do not accept ‘re-sits’ at GCSE or standard level qualifications."

To counteract the argument of doing GCSE maths early so that you can then do further maths, I know of at least 2 very academic schools who just teach the 2 syllabuses (and beyond) side by side and both get taken at the end of year 11. Not sure why it is thought that you need to have done the GCSE before you can be extended in a subject.
For more able children I think taking GCSEs ipiecemeal draws out the boredom and chronic stress of public exams and, although clocking up the GCSE numbers, the exams are more likely to just be a test of short term memory and reflect exam focused teaching.

The school can cram you in for more and bump themselves up the league tables.

DD took about 14 and ended up a shredded wreck. Back in the day I did 12 O levels. Never needed more than 5 of them. I was so sick of exams I dropped out of A levels and was 30 before I could face any more proper education.

I suspect though the tiny proportion of universities who want to know when the exams were taken are the most selective universities. I would wonder about the quality of a student if they has to take an exam more than twice in order to pass.

I haven't read any of thread, but these are reasons I prefer some 1-2 yrs "early" sittings for GCSEs:

The English system is so focused on GCSEs as all or nothing results, getting one/some over & done with proves to kids they can do it and it's not as overwhelming to tackle the others.

Multi-yr takes prevents certain time table conflicts that used to be very common and prevented study of certain combinations (e.g., so many people have told me they HAD to choose history or geography, never allowed both).

Vast majority of Unis or other destinations really don't mind & now expect staggered times.

It allowed the opportunity for retakes before the start of 6th form.

Some MNers have admitted they did bugger all work for 4 yrs & crammed at the end to get passes, so the all-at-end system did not teach them good study habits or give them enough feedback that really seemed to matter.

Completing all in a very narrow time frame means that if they have a bad spell in life for some other reason (hormones, love life, parents, whatever) that all their marks are screwed up, instead of just some. Spreading GCSEs hedges bets against the vagaries of teenage life roller coasters.

Plenty of kids won't get much better marks by waiting until last month of last yr, especially with so much pressure on at once.

The old system was too much pressure for many.

I could probably think of more if I allowed another 10 minutes of thinking. Want to read what others wrote, though.

Ds did French and maths early. It has freed him up to do additional maths, with no pressure this year in preparation for maths a next. On French he could either have done another language this year or again as he has done keep on with French which he may take at a level.

He would have been bored and stroppy imv had they not done this. But there is no way he would have been ready for eg physics.

that's good to know cream. If only we could leave out the rubbish grades if taken too early...

Universities will ask for the grades they achieved first time round and make a note of the dates of the exams so if they're spread across a couple of years, it could make it harder for the student to compete for a Uni place

Nope, a tiny proportion of universities prefer candidates to take A levels at the same time, but we really don't ever care when students take GCSEs.

I wouldn't do it.

I did mine early and it created more problems than not for me.
I wish I could have done things with my peers.

Good question, I haven't heard of a persuasive argument yet. It causes more problems than it solves.

In a nice way of course. I have known the head since before ds was born, so feel free to express my opinions!

DS is in Year 9 and doing stats this year. I have made my unhappiness at this very apparent, especially for a child with dyspraxia/delayed development.

He also was due to do triple science, but has been moved down a set so is now doing double. Only just worked that out after his consultation evening. He is happy, but I would have preferred him to do triple science rather than blinking stats.

I have told the head that if he gets less than a c I will be gunning for him.