Pros and cons of starting GCSEs in Y9

GreySheep
That is both reassuring and surprising.

In my area the school's that have your child's school's profile all do two year GCSE, along with all the independent schools.

Given their context, I'm really confused why your DC school narrows the curriculum early then because that sort of profile is really quite unusual. Usually near me the three year GCSE is done as an attempt to pull results up because an area of the school is weak in some ways.

It's not bucking the trend by doing well. There are loads of great schools out there. I'm just really surprised that a school with strong staff, a stable workforce, reasonable entry etc would narrow the curriculum in that way as there's really no need for y11 to be a year rehashing stuff if it's already been taught properly first time.

Ofsted are starting to look at narrowing curriculum choices more closely so I would imagine many schools will revert back to doing 2 year courses in 2 years.

I agree with PP - I find it depressing that people talk about how their child hates drama, music, art or whatever and how great it is for them to give it up. That suggests that the teaching of these subjects was grim.

In our area it's definitely the 'better' schools with more able cohorts doing 2-year GSCEs and the ones with a reputation for being bootcamp who do the 3-year ones.

My oldest is doing no artsy subjects, which I think is a great shame. But at least he did them for three years of secondary (though was allowed to give up one of them).

Some DC take 9 GCSEs and that is it for three years. It just is not a broad education. Not every DC hates subjects. Some are good and enjoy all of them. Some schools set up for the least engaged and the least academic. That is not fair on some DC who really want to learn more and can progress at a faster pace. I am glad mine did 2 year gcses. They benefitted from a broader curriculum and not being bored.

@LolaSmiles

The point of year 11 isn't to spend half the year revising.It is absolutely possible to teach a GCSE course well in 2 years.
Of course it’s not the point and I didn’t say half. I said it’s not a FULL year and normal study does not go on until July since exams are earlier.

I would imagine when you talk about your DC's school having massively improved results that probably means they're like other schools in my area who do 3 year KS4:

- history of low performance so any intervention at KS4 will see improvement
Nope - one of the best performing schools for years now.

- high turnover of staff especially in core departments and/or largely inexperienced teaching staff (usually but not always)
Again no - huge retention of staff due to innovative practices that create a great working balance for teachers. School is fully staffed with specialist subject teachers in all areas.

- much narrower offer at ks4, often with humanities and ebacc subjects heavily restricted
Again not the case - quite a wide range of options tbh.

- many students pushed into open bucket options to pull up the progress 8 score (BTECs for example are completed easily in 18 months in my school so who knows what they're doing in 3 years other than using option time for extra core subject revision in y11).
Happily no to this also - completely flexible options choices and rare cases of options being refused happily. BTECS are present but not an excessive amount and not massively taken up either.

- limited curriculum at KS3
Nope. The only thing not included was music but the school has a dedicated out of school music program that’s highly regarded in the area and encourages local kids in great ways.

- may get lower entry from primary and so by pushing certain qualifications can make it appear that the school has done something wonderful but really it's putting headline figures above a balanced education
DD’s year had highest SATS performance so far and it increases each year due to feeder primaries being high performing too.

I could be wrong, but that's usually the profile in my region for schools with longer ks4, not all but most.
Happily you’ve cheered me up no end as whilst I knew DD’s school was good I didn’t realise it was bucking many trends in education. Good to know it’s by far not the norm in schools so thank you.

Where we are, there has been a move towards starting in Yr9. Some subjects didn't actually teach the specification until part way through yr9 in the early days, but having found the content is so heavy to get through, now do start on the actual GCSE right from the start.

It has been noticeable that the selective schools (Independnet and state) are doing 3 year GCSEs and gradually the Comps are moving in that direction too. Some has moved that way after a poor set of GCSE results or disappointing Ofsted.

Isn't one thing all schools are very interested in now, this interleaving thing - where you don't just plough through all the new material and then revise it all at the end, but teach new material and keep re-visiting old topics all the way through - someone mentioned it about maths upthread. I thought this was the big thing now in all subjects and meant to really get the information or skills into lomg term memory. Presumably, if you spend 20% (guessing here) of your time re-visiting previous topics,mig takes longer to complete a course, so 3 years might help.

I'm sure schools do it because they hope it will boost GCSE performance and league tables....this might be seen as vital with more content heavy courses now, although I can see that if a mix of Btecs and GCSEs are taught it might not work so well if Btecs really don't take more than 2 years.

Cynically, I also think it has allowed some schools to save money - by teaching less classes the artistic subjects which might need smaller classes, and driving students towards fewer GCSEs (more periods for maths and English etc) they don't need to many teachers of the practical subjects and this has also contributed to the closing down of some subjects. I think some of these decisions have been led by the tight budgets not educational reasons.

Personally I think 3 year GCSE is fine, but definitely good to include a humanity, a language and in most cases a practical subject too, to maintain breadth. Some schools often some kind of non-examined lesson a week too where they can pick for a wide range of topics and cover something they're not doing at GCSE, like an art module etc, which can mean they don't totally lose the things they don't do for GCSE - but I think this tends to be the huge schools that can staff such things.

Most of our local schools choose in year 8 to start in year 9 - especially the grammars. One of the grammars the girls choose a language and then 4 options and then drop one for year 10 which I think is a good idea.

My DC are in years 11 and 9 and their school selects options during year 8. They can change their options up until Christmas of year 9 I think.

Not sure what I think overall. Being able to drop subjects which they really don’t like which also means the subject is more enjoyable for the ones who do like it and actively want to do it is a good thing. And DS in year 11 is still actively learning.

But having a narrower curriculum from year 9 isn’t ideal, although mine are both doing at least one humanity, language and arts subject so not too narrow.

Their school hasn’t been inspected for a number of years though so who can tell what will happen when it does.

DD2's school did the 3 year GCSE and in fact their website still says they do, but we had a meeting last month for parents of year 8 pupils, to tell us that they're not going to be choosing options in year 8 and they're reverting back to a 2 year GCSE programme.

I suppose I was thinking of DC's school where in Year 9 they have just focused on "general" English skills in English Lang (not talking about specifically answering GCSE questions) and they didn't start their set texts until the very end of the year,but spent Year 9 reading a variety of other materials, again to build up general skills.

DC's school offered a broad curriculum at KS3. It was so broad that non-core subjects had to be studied in rotation. Having 10 weeks of (say) textiles or computer science a year really doesn't give you enough immersion in the subject to understand it or know if you might like to study it further! I preferred the "less broad" curriculum at KS4, but then the school also offer "off curriculum days" and both my DC have always got involved in extra curricular activities, so I suppose they are getting their breadth that way!

Red I'd agree with you on Maths, but not on English.

You could make a very boring English curriculum just learning how to answer the Lang questions (which are of very specific types) and studying the 3 books and poems for 3 years. Or you can use y9 to learn how to study plays, books & poems by picking different books and poems to look at, and look at writing in different styles without being constrained by question structure.

The problem is we want our children to have a broad, inspiring, education. But ultimately we also want them to pass/gets 7s/whatever in the GCSEs. Schools need to find a balance.

DC's school starts GCSE subjects in Y9, but they don't start their English Lit set texts until the very end of the year, when the DC are given an introduction to the first text prior to studying it in detail at the start of the next term (beginning of Y10).

For maths and English, which a student is obliged to take, I don't think the 2/3 year GCSE should make any difference. Maths and English Lang are both subjects where everything you've ever learnt is relevant for your GCSE and both would continually build on what's been done before, regardless of 2/3 year pattern.

Lola: yes it is a two tier system but the secondary moderns pride themselves, in some cases, with great results that are way better than many comprehensives. They play the system but lots of schools are doing it. They can also have upwards of 30% higher achievers. Therefore they should have decent results. They just don’t go at the pace the Grammars do! Few parents seem to dislike it.

Doing anything early can lower grades. No DC needs more than 10 GCSEs. Maturity can come quite late to some DC and revising skills may not be honed. I don’t think taking an exam early does any DC any favours and Ofsted don’t like that either!

Yes I should have acknowledged subject differences teachermaths. I don't know much about maths but colleagues seem to do lots of spiral learning coming back to set topics year on year.

For English what tends to happen (and the same in similar subjects) is that staff rush through the set texts as quick as possible, often with paragraph formula, teach a bit of writing skills, drill the English language reading questions and then seem surprised when they've completed the courses in 14 months that students don't know the set texts well. Who'd have thought 🙄.

I had a colleague who used to pride herself on telling her class how far ahead they were and how they'd be done by Christmas of year 11 to revise and so on. It was like a teacher doing that primary school pupil thing of rushing the maths worksheet, not showing your marking, missing out your units but itching to be the first pupil to put your hand up to say you were done.

Mine is in year 11 after having done options at the end of year 8. They had finished the curriculum last year and are now doing revision lessons till exam time.

On the plus side he got to drop the things he didn’t enjoy, drama, art & music.

On the minus side he has to drop subjects he enjoyed but didn’t fit with his timetable, history and cookery.

I personally feel it’s too early, but The school gets great results so hopefully it will all be worth it in August.

The longer I'm in schools, the more I've realised that this obsession with "revision" in class is, more often than not, re-teaching ineffectively taught material that was rushed through in order to say "we finished the course and will have months revising".

I think this is hugely subject dependent. In Maths we are constantly revisiting and re teaching. Not because it was badly taught, there's just a lot of knowledge to retain and skills to apply. For us, revision on a mix of topics is vital throughout the year and also in the run up to exams (from March /April latest). I can see how this would be different in say English.

Ofsted have slated 3 year GCSEs so I don't think many schools will be offering them soon. I prefer 2 year. (Though it's irrelevant in Maths, everything you ever learn is GCSE content).

Lastly don’t forget that Year 11 is not a full year. They leave early and much is taken up with revision. So any schools starting GCSEs in year 10 do not have a full 2 years of study.
The point of year 11 isn't to spend half the year revising.It is absolutely possible to teach a GCSE course well in 2 years.

And most schools have students in until the exams start anyway, often with them not officially leaving until may half term.

I would imagine when you talk about your DC's school having massively improved results that probably means they're like other schools in my area who do 3 year KS4:

• history of low performance so any intervention at KS4 will see improvement
• high turnover of staff especially in core departments and/or largely inexperienced teaching staff (usually but not always)
• much narrower offer at ks4, often with humanities and ebacc subjects heavily restricted
• many students pushed into open bucket options to pull up the progress 8 score (BTECs for example are completed easily in 18 months in my school so who knows what they're doing in 3 years other than using option time for extra core subject revision in y11).
• limited curriculum at KS3
• may get lower entry from primary and so by pushing certain qualifications can make it appear that the school has done something wonderful but really it's putting headline figures above a balanced education

I could be wrong, but that's usually the profile in my region for schools with longer ks4, not all but most.

Loads of schools I know sit one GCSE in year 10. Often English literature. This means you have one less subject to sit in Year 11.

Seems a good idea to me. I'm very cross Ds1's school doesn't.

My younger daughter would certainly have wanted to drop her foreign language if she'd been made to chose in year 8. Given another year, she got into her stride and now it's her favourite GCSE course. She just needed to stick at it a bit longer and grow up a bit. I fundamentally think year 8 is too early to be dropping so many subjects. Great for exam results. Bad for a broad education.

They did get an early start on the maths and science courses in year 9, though. That seemed a reasonable compromise to me.

Read some recent ofsted reports, they ( not unreasonably imo) dislike the 3 year gcse practice and I suspect as this becomes clearer fewer schools will offer it. In practice choosing in y8 means just after Christmas when you are possibly still 12 and may have studied some subjects for only 4 terms and then closing off future paths.

DD is in year 9 of a school that’s now achieving massively improved results. As part of this improvement they’ve started GCSE courses in year 9 (choosing options in year 8).

I absolutely approve of it.

DD could get rid of her most hated subjects a year early and therefore use those timetable slots for GCSE subjects.

It also takes the pressure off her as she knows she has longer to take it all in.

Lastly don’t forget that Year 11 is not a full year. They leave early and much is taken up with revision. So any schools starting GCSEs in year 10 do not have a full 2 years of study.

All round I highly approve of it and it’s certainly working wonders at DD’s school.

Wow bubbles that's even more of a two tier system!

In my area we don't have grammars so the pattern is more independent schools and strong comprehensives do 2 year GCSE (often with a broad KS3 and a range of enrichment) and the less good schools or those with low attainment or historical issues of behaviour etc do a 3 year KS3 (often with a very narrow KS3 and limited enrichment).

Around me, the Grammars do 2 years GCSE and the secondary moderns do 3 years for GCSEs. They get less disruption, better results (they think) and can take the syllabus at a slower speed. It means DC have a less broad education and it’s exam driven. 9 subjects in y9 is too narrow. Whilst we have universities and colleges that only care about subjects and grades this is the result. Poor general education.

DS picked at end of year 8 - he would have probably had the same tricky choice wether end of yr 8 or 9 and it has really worked for him..
no more being tortured in art/dt!
his school say they think it gives more focus to yr 9 and tehy found behaviour/attitudes improved
his school use the extra time to maintain the level of pe/sport all they way up to yr 11 (3 x double sessions a week) wheres our other possible dropped a pe session

Plus she's a hard working steady student, and I suspect she'll find year 11 deathly dull by the time she gets there.
Even for less than hard working students it gets dull.

The longer I'm in schools, the more I've realised that this obsession with "revision" in class is, more often than not, re-teaching ineffectively taught material that was rushed through in order to say "we finished the course and will have months revising".

The best years results I've had, I've been teaching right through to spring of the course.

TreePeepingWatcher
The school should have redesigned the English mocks around what had been covered so far.
To be honest the literature content isn't anywhere near as bad as some schools and teachers make out. I was worried about it but found adapting my teaching made it really enjoyable. The teachers I know who find it stressful are the ones (excluding those with tricky groups or SEND classes) who haven't changed how they teach so keep doing the same old approaches and then complaining when the results don't come out where they should.