Can anyone talk to me about Core Science GCSE as opposed to Triple Science please ?

Just to add to the "broad education" point, I was keen that my DS did triple science exactly because he WASN'T going to continue with Sciences to A level. I wanted him to learn as much as possible as it was probably the last time in his life that he was going to do any science.

He did fine, and enjoyed it. And is done with it, having gone onto Languages/Humanities A levels. It would seem to me that if you are capable of it, you should keep as broad a base of subjects open for as long as possible.

Obviously this isn't sensible in these grade obsessed times if it is going to affect your other grades, and therefore your options for the future, but if it is feasible it seems sensible to take any subject as far as you are able. Isn't this education ?

It's possible we were wrong. Perhaps everything covered in core science is all you need for life ? And perhaps it just added more exams and stress to an otherwise very busy year.

My dd really wanted to do triple. But at the year 9 options evening one science teacher said her grades where not high enough and she wouldn't get on the course.

I did a lot of research and core will enable her to get into a good uni to study genetics/cells etc.

Fast forward to year 10 and school write to me asking why dd did not choose triple as they consider her to be gifted!

I wasn't best pleased and gave school some feedback on this. The head of science has since apologised and have admitted they got it wrong.

Dd is doing well in core and is on track for A*

Anyfucker
It really helps to think of it across the whole cohort ....
DCs school has two "bands" each with five "sets"
so there are potentially 60 kids doing fast track triple.
In fact its nearer 45 as kids have had to drop back to double (as their timetable slots do not let them drop back to slow track triple)
and there have been kids whose parents cannot accept that two A's will look better than two B's and a C

talk to them and make them explain their stance.
they may convince you, you may convince them
but at least then you'll be moving into year 10 supporting the classes that are being taken (which is actually the most important thing)

OP
Its tricky. In most cases the school will have the child's interests at heart - because they align.

At DCs school the bottom set do core science only
The next set does core and additional in two slots
The middle set do core and additional in one slot
The second set do triple science in three lessons
Only the top set do triple science in two slots

also a fair few C/D boundary kids get moved across to the IGCSE as its distinctly easier.

The school would much rather a lower number of GCSE passes at higher grades than bundles of B and C grades.

What happened in our generation is not applicable to today (I was allowed to do an A level with a B grade at combined science GCE for example)

but communication is key : talk to the teachers and understand what the whole cohort are doing to get your head around the rationale.

nocomet I very much agree with you. If your dd is at that level, imo, she should be able to do triple. A couple of years back I fought for one of my severely dyslexic pupils to take triple (my HOD disagreed after teacher her for a few months). She had fantastic subject knowledge. I won (as always!) and she achieved 3As.

AF, for you ds to only get half of his choices, I think you are well within your rights to approach the school. They obviously can't meet everyone's requirements, but he does seem a little hard done by. I know I'd be annoyed if it were my dc.
Were they given their options last week? The school should be happy to meet with you to discuss and hopefully try again to see if there is another way forward. But please don't think core/additional will close doors for him.

Legume, oops

And perhaps DD will get A/A* rather than A/A/A and maybe dyslexic spelling being what it is she'll just get A/A.

In the end it probably won't matter for her or for the school legume tables, she'll have still made expected progress.

However, the school have gained an unpaid Teaching Assistant for years and that's not very ethical.

Explaining stuff to your peers is a good up to a point, she has long passed this point.

Agree with pippa, and tbh citing loads of people who got 3 O levels back in the day from Ampleforth is irrelevant, the teaching used to be awful at A,
( not the case now ) and most of them got their jobs/ army appointments based on family connections. The world has moved on.
When schools get students to do core and additional rather than triple they ime do it with the students best interests at heart. It does not close any doors for them, providing they get good grades in those 2 exams.
The school 2 of my dc go to only offers core and additional, they got 12 into Oxbridge and 14 into medicine last year.
At the school I teach at we offer both routes, we are offering less triple from next year onwards, but that is due to the change to terminal exams and how students are coping with that. The worst case scenario is you allow a borderline student to take triple and they end up failing one or more of them, whereas if they had sat core and additional they would have got 2 Bs and been able to study science A levels. Every year we take a lot of students froma feeder 11-16 high school that also does not offer triple. Their students do fine at A level, and several of those students have offer from good RG/dentistry/med courses for this autumn.

AnyFucker: he wasn't even allowed to express an opinion on double or triple science. The school simply told people what they would be doing, whether they liked it or not.

I hate the school so much (this is just typical of their attitude to everything) that we're actually considering a bloody free school instead! At least they want to ask DS what he'd like to take. However I am not happy that this could be in any way taken as an endorsement of Gove and his awful education policy. When actually it's despair at what new labour and now Gove have done to education in this country.

Finally P3ppaPig I fully appreciate what the world is like. That's why both our children went to independent schools. We looked at the options where we live and across three London Boroughs found not a single school we felt was good enough, including Tiffin, for our son and only two for our daughter.

I do appreciate that but as somebody who works in HE I find it heartbreaking that we have so many students and so many potential employees (not academics) who have outstanding qualifications but who, when it comes down to it, can't write well and can't complete fairly simple arithmetical tasks. I'm talking about people who have a Masters and are looking for an entry level professional job but who cannot write in the correct tense or work out a simple percentage. I find it very sad that young people in their mid to late 20s with strings of A grade GCSEs, good A'Levels, degrees from reasonable universities and post grad qualifications don't have the functional skills to succeed in the workplace.

Unfortunately, the world isn't like that anymore. And yes, my job IS to get the best possible grades out of my pupils. Many parents on here I'm sure would agree. Without those grades, doors are closed. In effect, the opposite of providing a broad eduction.
I do agree with your point, Windmill. Education should be about a variety. At GCSE, I think that balance is there. But for many parents, some posting on here, it's not as simple as that. Every parent wants their child to succeed. For most (and unfortunately, for higher education facilities) this is measured in the grades they achieve.

And your job shouldn't be to get the highest grades out of your pupils alone, it should also be about providing them with a good all round education and providing them with a love of learning.

I think you missed my point Peppa. It was about education -v- qualifications. The C+ child might not pass, might not even do A'Levels but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a broad education.

When I was a lass lots and lots of people only got 2/3 O'Levels, many from top schools such as Harrow and Ampleforth. Those people left the system extremely well educated albeit not terribly well qualified or academic. Many went into the City or the Army or into other good jobs at a time when a degree wasn't the be all and the end all.

I'm not sure that they'll be missing out on anything 'incredibly important' when they're all doing 10-12 gcses though. Clearly other schools do let you use an option for it.

Ds1's school don't want the kids to do triple science because they are all about the league tables. Only double science counts so that's all they want them to do. The ebacc is measured so they insist that the kids do that (whether they want to of not). DS would gladly drop French and use a slot for extra science. He had to take history and geography because the alternatives in one of the columns were all textiles/drama/business studies. He even put re down as a second choice because there was nothing else that wasn't arty in the column.

We're investigating changing schools to find one that gives as shit about what DS wants and not just what he can do for their league table position.

But I think we are agreeing windmill. My job is to get the highest grades out of my pupils. Pupils that are 'likely' to be grade c/b will 'more likely' get the higher grade sitting core/additional Science than if doing triple. No doors are being closed. They can still do Alevel Science with these qualifications. Like I said, it is only 1 6th form (a grammar) that has recently insisted on triple. Tbf, we have then allowed pupils to sit the extra modules to then be able to apply at this 6th form. Remember, a grammar would be very selective (well this one is).
In the case of the hypothetical child above, getting a C in triple science would mean they are very unlikely to be let on an Alevel course. Getting Bs in double would allow them on.

Whilst I see the logic behind the post about Level 6b equating to a B grade GCSE and about taking future plans into account in relation to A'Levels I'd like to raise two points.

In relation to the low(er) grade(s) I don't really understand why education should be limited in relation to C+ pupils. Education is surely more important than qualifications and should be broad and thorough especially as many many people build on it throughout their lives.

In relation to what pupils want to do at A'Level, at 14 when they chose their GCSE courses they are very young and shouldn't have options turned off unless absolutely necessary at this stage in my opinion. I think that's a very sad approach. Did you know what you wanted to do at 14? My dd was contemplating medicine or a liberal arts based degree at that stage and I think it would have been a great shame to have closed down options.

As I say Education -v- qualifications although I do accept that 35-40 years ago if a child ended up in a secondary modern they got neither but the risk today is that it is happening in other schools too and even the most well qualified are coming out of the sausage machine not terribly well educated.

Calamitously-that may be the case for your son. But for most it would mean having yo choose between Science and an equally important option choice. You'd be shutting too many doors on subjects imo.

The thing is, there are lots of parents that feel their child should do triple. We have some very heated conversations every year.
When I put pupils into groups and therefore decide who is doing triple and core/additional it is based on lots of data and conversations with staff. I am not doing it to slight anyone. I am trying to make a decision that will mean the best possible outcome for your dc.

Please dont think the school benefits from doing triple science in any way. We don't get 'judged' on the extra gcse. Our 'league' tables are based only on 2 gcses. So if the class all get 3As, it is only counted that they got 2As. We do it to benefit the kids we think can achieve the highest grades.
However, if it was HOD I would also do analysis on what Alevels the pupils wanted to do. Every year we get a few who have no interest in following Sci Alevels doing triple gcse. I agree this is a waste of a space on the group.

What I don't understand is the only doing it in the two slots allocated to double science and not using another choice thing (which they do at ds1's school too). It makes no sense, especially when it means that students have to pick something else they're not all that interested in. Picking options for ds1 was a case of 'which of the subjects in this column are least awful' rather than anything else.

I did dual science at school despite getting the highest mark possible in y9 science sats. The classes were streamed and there weren't behaviour issues. I didn't go on to do science based subjects, though.