GCSE Triple Science...is this really how it is now??

Phew! Keep a close eye on it and keep asking questions..

Well done OP.

Talkin

I'm not sure I quite agree with you here. Although most secondaries may be academies, surely most primaries are still LEA controlled?

I have been really impressed by Hampshire Music Services 'Listen to Me' program. If that were cut, that would I think lead to a drop in music knowledge/interest at primary, leading to a drop at secondary. The IOW has recently announced plans to decimate its own high achieving music service.

Going back to the thread and science. I think some science should be compulsory, double science probably the norm. But doing triple in the way described by the OP is crazy imo.

What a Gradgrindian attitude.

As most schools are Academies, what LEAs do ceases to be relevant.

Music will be on the GCSE curriculum at almost all secondary schools.
the fact that dance and drama are being dropped at under 16 is by the by TBH - as those who are interested tend to do it outside school

music will not help solve global warming
science will

Well, obviously I wasn't bearing in mind anything about your kids' school, since that's irrelevant. We are in a situation where all schools are under pressure to make as many children as possible study at least double science and, for the brighter ones, triple science, to GCSE level. At the same time as arts ed is being decimated. It's ridiculous. There is more to education than science. Kids should be encouraged to study what interests them and what they have a chance in doing well at. That may be science- triple science should be available to all who want it. But it may be arty subjects. And increasingly, these are NOT available to all who want them, and bright kids are often forced to study science instead of what they would prefer to study. And Gove is encouraging LEAs to cut funding for music education to zero.

Yes, most students study a general science course based on all three sciences (although I disagree with you about core and additional and do not see why the majority of students would need a course that a university would recognise given that most will never study sciences at university).

Some study triple sciences.

But it is not possible, really, to do what Herc is suggesting and drop one or more of the science entirely by year 9.

Herc
Why?
Bearing in mind that in DCs cohorts of 300 per year only 60 do triple science?

I'd rather lose triple science than music. Every time.

But they DO NOT study "all three sciences"
the foundation level core science curriculum is not something any University department would recognise.

Its been a fight to get Triple Science back into state schools, FFS do not let them take it back OUT again

Much as I hate Gove, people have had to study all three sciences for about twenty years now. So that one cannot be layed at his door!

The real problem is forcing everyone, no matter what their interests and ability, to study science at GCSE. My sister did no science O levels. She got excellent O level results, excellent A level results and a first class degree in history from UCL. She is not by any stretch of the imagination uneducated. She was crap at science though. she'd have struggled to pass chemistry and biology - her physics might have been ok, she got an A for O level maths. I only did physics O level, dropped chemistry and biology not because I was crap at them but because I much preferred history.

Gove's idea of what constitutes a Good Education really doesn't tally with my own. :(

To be fair moomin they can't do modules aby more.

However, there are plenty of alternatives to the nonsense in the OP.

I did my GCSEs four years ago. We did triple science starting from Year 9 and ran modules concurrently - we'd do a week of Biology, a week of Chemistry, a week of Physics, and then we'd do the exams for the three modules. The school in the OP's post is doing it in a ridiculous way!

DC taking compressed triple science are not likely to fall into the camp of strugglers vis a vis science.

Anyone in that camp can do a double. Or even a single at a push.

I don't know any other school who would defend this for the top set science (who generally do a compressed triple).

I think your're in danger of defending any and every idiotic practice by schools, in an effort to always blame Gove.

TBH, I'm no fan of his, but this is an easily managable situation and is being managed by the majority of schools.

Sorry creamteas but the vast majority of other schools have not reacted to the changes with nonsense such as this

But it is not nonsense for all pupils. Clearly those possessed with a good memory who want to do science A levels will be better off with the all in year 11 approach.

But other children who cannot cope with too many exams in one year and have no intention of taking science A levels, might do better with a year by year approach.

As I said earlier, schools are having to balance the risks of early entry with the risks of over assessment. What ever they do, some children will be better served than others.

Sorry creamteas but the vast majority of other schools have not reacted to the changes with nonsense such as this! It's just a cop out to blame Gove. The responsibility here lies with the school.

I would kick up a massive fuss about this

Schools are trying to do their best with the crappy situation that Gove has put the exam system in.

I'm all for kicking up a fuss, but it needs to be at the ballot box.

Making it harder for young people to progress to a level and university in science! . I would kick up a massive fuss about this.

Ah yes, I see what you mean hellsbells, it's all just SO stupid!

I know our school won't let them take a subject for AS level unless they have at least a B at GCSE - so taking an exam in year 9 could potentially affect their choices as they are more likely to get a lower grade than they would have 2 years later as well as the impact of the huge gap since they last studied the subject

It's just so bloody low rent. The antithisis of a good education!

They do it to try to guarantee at least a C in all three which is more likely if done over three years than two. Looks good on the league tables as school can say they get X kids doing triple science and getting a C but disadvantages the brighter kids by potentially capping their achievement by making them take the first exam two years younger than they would be normally. Stupid practise but not massively uncommon.

Universities prefer fewer (9-10) gcses at higher grades than loads (10-15) at a C but for league tables the latter some schools think looks better.