Do GCSE subjects need to be rethought?

Senua, no I'm not. I'm saying that a child who is literally making themselves ill at the prospect of an exam in which they will probably not achieve the lowest grade, should perhaps not have to do that exam. Maybe they could (at first) have a go at a more practical test called functional skills (which exists BTW, I'm not going back anywhere) and achieve something there. This might give them the confidence to attempt GCSE - maybe post 16, they might feel they could get 3 or 4. Or maybe they won't. The thing is the school has to enter them for these academic GCSEs.

Another student I knew achieved F, G, G, 1, 1, U, U, U. I feel as if there might have been a more productive KS4 pathway for them. That's what I'm saying. Schools need more flexibility in a few cases.

Not that those who can't afford private are incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it.

Oh yes, I get that she wasn't saying that but it's a common view in education that FSM children aren't going to come from naice families.

mad I suspect nobles point was that those who could afford to go private would do so for the better education if there was too much emphasis on life skills. Not that those who can't afford private are incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it.

Designing a curriculum which interests and engages students is not the same thing as asking students to design the curriculum.
Not everything worth knowing is going to be exciting and engaging.

There's loads of blogs on the issues chasing 'engagement'. It sees people not teach perfectly great pieces of literature in favour of an easy text about drugs and crime because it will 'engage'.

Sometimes difficult things need teaching. Learning challenging concepts opens doors to exciting topics.
Lots of physics is fascinating, but students won't be able to access that if they're denied the basics because some adults decided it was too much to ask to have them develop a spot of resilience.

A curriculum should be opening doors for students and expanding their minds, not designed around a patronising notion that we shouldn't expect students to learn and engage their minds.

Sorry for the rant but I find it really patronising when I hear adults try to dumb down children's education (see also colleagues who think I shouldn't use big words with ks3 because they're just children who don't need big words. Why wouldn't I want to equip them with a broad vocabulary?)

I can guarantee that the kids of the better-off parents would not be sending them to bank account classes in school time when they could be sending them to classes in something that they couldn’t teach them at home and that would look better on their uni application.

Quite. I don't expect school to teach my DCs how to function in society, that's my job and I'd be pretty annoyed if they were trying to teach that at school and expecting me to pick up on nuclear physics at home. What do I know though, the DCs get FSM so I'm labelled as a parent who is incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it for me.

I bloody loved physics and languages at school. Let’s not assume that students are incapable of enjoying subjects that some may perceive as dull.

And let’s not confuse ‘engaging’ with ‘worthwhile’.

It’s the job of parents to prepare kids for independent life, it’s the job of schools to educate.

noblegiraffe
I agree.
A push for 'school to do basic life preparation and work skills because it's wrong to promote a love of learning in case some don't see the value' just lowers the bar for all students.
Instead of planning a curriculum to cater to the lowest denominator, why not look at how to engage and raise aspirations for those who keep getting the message from home that they don't need GCSEs, it's fine to be innumerate, fine to ignore subjects you aren't a fan of.

Putting lots of life topics into schools seems to be a convenient way of allowing adults to be feckless and take no responsibility. Nobody taught me how to apply for a mortgage in school. DH and I didn't have parental coaching. We got on with it.

I can guarantee that the kids of the better-off parents would not be sending them to bank account classes in school time when they could be sending them to classes in something that they couldn’t teach them at home and that would look better on their uni application.

Two tier education systems further entrench social disadvantage.

When I took my O'levels, we only had 7 subjects we could take at that level.

I ended up with 10 but they were not all taken at the same time, I sat English language early and dropped lit so did 7 in one sitting and picked up a couple in VI form.

There were people in my school who did 10 in one sitting. It wasn't the norm but it happened.

Personally I'd like to see more flexibility, I'd like to see a high school certificate as a 'wrapper' containing a mixture of subjects and levels. So it might incorporate a few GCSEs, a level 2 or level 1 BTEC or CTEC and even a level 3 single qualification. Also LAMDA, red cross etc.

Year 9 is wasted in too many schools, the GCSE study is 'started' but in reality outside the core subjects it doesn't always happen.

IMHO year 9 should be:

a) Core subjects, English, maths, science, a language - ideas on what should be 'core' are open for suggestions
b) Extra tuition for anyone who needs it in the core subjects or other subjects they want to take later
c) a range of taster courses for GCSEs (or other exams) and short courses in things like first aid, cooking, using a bank account. Maybe level 1 courses in languages and or other subjects not taken to GCSE.

You could also incorporate a group project or individual in depth piece of work and learning some skills eg touch typing.

Not everyone is academic, not everyone who is academic is good at all the ebacc subjects.

Education should give you the skills to lead the best life you can and secondary education should be a solid foundation for further study and for life.

@noblegiraffe Let’s spend our time teaching them to floss or play Fortnite, because that’s what they’re really interested in.

Yes, let them drop maths and study the modern Kulture of Engerland through the media of online games

Many students lose interest in subjects where they cant see what they are for

Children are the worst people to ask when designing a curriculum because they haven’t a bloody clue.

Let’s spend our time teaching them to floss or play Fortnite, because that’s what they’re really interested in.

Many students lose interest in subjects where they cant see what they are for. How many students are put off subjects by their lack utility? Would more students be inspired to stick with subjects if they could see a use for it?
Get rid of art because who needs to draw?
Get rid of music because what's the point in learning music?
Get rid of drama because who needs to act?
Get rid of history because most jobs don't need you know about stuff that's happened years ago?
Get rid of RE because there's no need to learn about other cultures?
Get rid of English because other than basic reading/writing skills there is no need for poetry or plays?
Get rid of any topic in maths and science that's not directly applicable to most life routes?

In fact, why not make school about basic literacy and numeracy? Then a massive PSHE curriculum to cover all the stuff people insist is useful for life and more important than learning stuff? Give them basic skills to be workers who'll not question too much but don't fill their heads with learning stuff.

That'll really allow our state educated children a level playing field with their privately educated peers.

wrt modern languages.
I have lived in several countries over seas, and now speak 3 languages fluently and 2 more at tourist level (one was fluent, but I have lost it through lack of use)

When I was learning one of those I was in a class with 2 people who had never had to learn a MFL at school. They were from Australia, and it was, at that time, not on the curriculum.

They really struggled. I mean REALLY struggled, and talking to one of them one day, he was telling me how he just couldn't get his head around things like the different word order, and that the grammar isn't the same etc. They had a mountain to climb before they even began to learn vocabulary.
By contrast the rest of us had learnt at least one language at school. In my case bad French. I wasn't a great French speaker, but I had learnt how another language works, and had to learn that the grammar is different, that word order changes, that the same letter is pronounced differently etc etc. You only learn that by actually learning enough to speak the language.
So, when I came to wanting to learn another language I had a huge step forward.

If we don't teach our kids to speak another language, we will prevent them from ever being able to learn one

Physics can then come along later but be built on a far better knowledge of applied maths.

So 98% of kids should never do physics then? Cos the vast majority don't continue with Maths beyond GCSE.

And those that do have the aptitude have to wait till they're 16+ before they learn about electricity, power, energy, gravity, Newton's laws, planets etc...

I suspect you've had crap teachers, and that's what needs addressing, not banning physics for all until they start Maths A level.

I like the idea of a functional skills level world culture type course. May lead into further language learning for students who enjoy it. Still a place for GCSE languages though.

but I loved physics, and not maths, and I would not have been bale to do further maths at all.
I went on to do physics at A level, but could never have coped with A level maths.

I simple do not understand the idea that physics should be done later than maths. I would have missed physics all together if I had had to get through some sort of maths gateway to access it.

Physics, of all subjects, makes sense - it is practical, it relates to the real world and how it works, further maths is abstract.

People don't need a GCSE to help them travel to other countries - my DCs have travelled widely without any language GCSEs (they aren't old enough to have done them) and will be dropping languages before GCSE.

As for engineering, it's a GCSE option at their school and one of them wants to be an engineer so will be studying it at GCSE level alongside Physics as they want to do triple science.

I don't see the need for any changes really, the GCSE curriculum at schools is broad enough to allow for specialisms and personal preferences.

I am totally bemused at the idea that physics is the science we should drop.
I remember clearly doing O levels, 3 sciences and I totally understood biology, pretty obvious, totally understood physics, electricity, forces, magnetic field, all visible and great to understand how they work.
But I was flummoxed by chemistry.
I went on to do sciences, and I have never got to grips with it.

But my engineering dh, loved physics and chemistry and was flummoxed by biology.

Which just goes to show that your dislike/aversion to physics is really based on your own experience and skill set.

No, we should not be dumbing down GCSEs, as to your suggestion that we shouldn't teach MFL, I bang my head on the desk in despair, MFL are bad enough without reducing them further.
But the best thing would be to improve the teaching, and increase the expectation, so people actually end up being able to speak another language, like they do in every other European country, except ours.

Baldricks I think the science GCSEs are pretty comprehensive. I only did Physics and Chemistry for O level, so all the Biology was 'new' to me when DD1 did her GCSEs. I think it is way better to do all 3 sciences to 2/3rds level than miss one entirely.

The thing is 'G'CSEs are meant to be general. If you only do 7 subjects you are cutting out a lot very early. At our school I think the standard ins now 9.5 (maths, 2 English, double science, 0.5 RE, plus 4 options).

If you only did 7 and wanted full science content then you are saying maths, 2 English, 3 science, plus only 1 other. Even changing the triple science for the double combined only gives 2 others. So you are dropping everything else at the age of rising 14.

The time for greater depth is A levels.

When I took my O'levels, we only had 7 subjects we could take at that level.

Really? I did 10 O Levels.... 7 is too few subjects to provide a rounded curriculum. You could maybe combine English Lang and Lit, but even then you'd have Maths, English and Combined Science which counts as 2, so only having room for one language, one Humanity and one other seems really narrow, and we specialise early enough in England as it is.

When I took my O'levels, we only had 7 subjects we could take at that level. Now, most students take 10 or more different subjects for GCSE, and they are probably spreading themselves too thin. They can't study each subject to the level we did. I still have my old O'level biology textbook, and when dd was doing her GCSEs I couldn't believe just how little was in the curriculum compared with how it used to be. Surely it would be far better for them to do fewer subjects, but in greater depth?

I don't think that physics is any less important than chemistry or biology. I'd argue that physics can be seen more than chemistry or biology as you need a microscope for some of the topic areas. My kids don't find GCSE physics too maths heavy either.

MFL - I have 2 kids who did an MFL GCSE and one who won't be doing one. I've warned him that the school will try to push him into doing it but he's not interested. MFL teaching is terrible in England compared to continental Europe (I don't want to make comments about N Ireland, Scotland and Wales as have no knowledge about education there) but "giving up" is not the answer. There are children who enjoy languages and it would be divisive if private schools became the only places to study them.

I have a child in y11 who has RE until Christmas (she's not studying it for GCSE) and quite frankly I see it as a waste of time, it's only a lesson a fortnight but I suspect that they would be better served with a lesson on Current Affairs like I used to have at primary school (a long time ago). They didn't know stuff like how the electoral process worked (despite covering the suffragettes in History), how laws are made , the main members of the Royal Family... which should be common knowledge if you're English.